auc 
Se 


he? “ “τ στον 
“μὰ aoe 
divitgicte dis 


are 
penton 


τ 


os 
i Ἐν 


an =| 
ae | ia = o 


Fram the Library of 
Professor Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield 
Benqueathed by him to 
the Hibrary of 


Princeton Chenlogical Seminary 


BO ache. 


\ colleetion of the texts, 


translations, reviews, etc. 


: Bo the ce. Ἴππος by 


7 


’ 
κ 
Vo = hs 
᾽ 
¥ 
᾿ 
4 \ 
! 
: ᾿ 
Ἂς ‘ 
" 
i 
{ 4 
1 ὶ 
τ ι Ls 
UG ᾿ ᾿ 


‘ 


ao 
Fae 


j 


AIAAXH 
TON AQAEKA ATIOSTOAQN. 


“TEACHING 


OF 


tien LW HY APOSTLES: 


RECENTLY DISCOVERED AND PUBLISHED BY PHILOTHEOS 
BRYENNIOS, METROPOLITAN OF NICOMEDIA., 


EDITED WITH A TRANSLATION, INTRODUCTION 
AND NOTES, 


BY 
ROSWELL D. HITCHCOCK 
AND 
FRANCIS “BROWN, 


PROFESSORS IN UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, NEW YORK. 


NEW YORK: 
CHARLES SCRIBNER’S SONS. 
1884, 


Zz. ως, 


ΟΟΡΥΒΙΘΗΎ, 1884, By 
CHARLES SCRIBNER’S SONS. 


INTRODUCTION. 


In 1875 Philotheos Bryennios, then Metro- 
politan of Serrae (now Serres), in ancient Meso- 
potamia, published the two Epistles of Clement 
of Rome, from a manuscript discovered by him 
in the Library of the Most Holy Sepulchre in 
Fanar of Constantinople. ‘The last six chapters 
(60-65) of the First Epistle, and the last eight 
sections (13-20) of the so-called Second Epistle, 
had never been published before. The date of 
the manuscript is 1056 a.p. As described by 
the finder, “it is an octavo volume, written on 


iii 


INTRODUCTION. 


parchment, in cursive characters, and consists of 
120 leaves.” First comes Chrysostom’s Synop- 
sis of the Books of the Old and New Testa- 
ment; then the Epistle of Barnabas; then the 
two Epistles of Clement; then the Teaching of 
the Twelve Apostles; then the Epistle of Mary 
of Cassobelae to Ignatius; followed by eight 
Epistles of Ignatius (the current seven, besides 
one to the Virgin Mary). | 

The “Teaching of the Twelve Apostles,” 
Διδαχὴ τῶν dddexa ᾿Αποστόλων, occupies leaves 
76-80 of the manuscript. It now seems strange 
to us that the document thus announced at- 
tracted so little attention. This same Bryen- 
nios, now Metropolitan of Nicomedia, in Asia 
Minor, has again surprised the literary world by 
publishing, with an abundance of learned illus- 
tration, this long-lost document. It is printed 
in Constantinople, and the date of publication 15. 
1883. The genuineness of the document can 
hardly be doubted. It is cited by Clement of 
Alexandria in his First Stroma; by Eusebius, 


iv 


INTRODUCTION. 


who speaks of it (Hist. mi. 25) as τῶν ᾿Αποσ- 
τόλων at λεγόμεναι διδαχαί; and by Athanasius 
in his 39th Festal Epistle. Bickell and Geb- 
hardt had recently argued that there must have 
been some such document underlying both the 
Seventh Book of the Apostolic Constitutions 
and the Apostolic Epitome. In 1882 Kra- 
wutzky undertook, from these sources, to re- 
cover and reconstruct the embedded earlier and 
simpler document; and with a success of the 
most pronounced and brilliant character, as now 
tested by the work just published. 

This document belongs undoubtedly to the 
second century; possibly as far back as 120 
A.D., hardly later than 160 a.p. The whole tone 
of it is archaic. It contradicts nothing belong- 
ing to that age; corroborates some things which 
may henceforth be more strongly emphasized ; 
and adds some things for which we may well 
be very profoundly grateful. 

The present editors are happy to be able to 
put this “ Teaching of the Twelve Apostles,” so 


ν 


INTRODUOTION. 


promptly before the American public. The 
text has been carefully edited. The translation 
will be found to be studiously literal. A few 
notes have been added, which, it is hoped, may 
be of service both to students and to general 
readers. | 


Roswety D. Hrrcncock. 
Franois Brown. 


UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, 
New YorK City, March 20, 1884. 


vi 


AIAAXH 


TON AQAEKA ATIOSTOAQN. 


AIAAXKH 


TON 


AQAEKA ATIOSTOAQN. 


Atdayn Κυρίου διὰ τῶν δώδεκα ἀποστόλων τοῖς 


ἔϑνεσιν. 


| 
“ δ a a “Ὁ 
Κεφ. a. ᾿Οδοὶ δύο εἰσί, μία τῆς ζωῆς καὶ μία τοῦ ϑανά- 
του, διαφορὰ δὲ πολλὴ μεταξὺ τῶν δύο ὁδῶν. 
ἩΧΞ \ > EQOA aA an > Ὁ a 
5 - Ἢ μὲν οὖν ὁδὸς τῆς ζωῆς ἐστιν αὕτη " πρῶτον, 
3 / XN \ \ / 'f is 
ἀγαπήσεις τὸν Θεὸν τὸν ποιήσαντά σε" δεύτε- 
\ , e ih / ἌΡ . 
ρον, τὸν πλησίον σου ὡς σεαυτόν " πάντα δὲ ὅσα 
ΨΝ le \ / “ \ \ 3 \ 
ἐὰν ϑελήσῃς μὴ γίνεσϑαί σοι, καὶ σὺ ἄλλῳ μὴ 
ποίει. “ Τούτων δὲ τῶν λόγων ἡ διδωχή ἐστιν 
: e > a \ / (Serpe es \ 
10 αὕτη: ΕΕΕὐλογεῖτε τοὺς καταρωμένους ὑμῖν καὶ 
προσεύχεσϑε ὑπὲρ τῶν ἐχϑρῶν ὑμῶν, νηστεύετε 
\ A n \ / 
δὲ ὑπὲρ τῶν διωκόντων ὑμᾶς - ποία yap χάρις, 


Ω 
7 


TEACHING 


OF THE 


TWELVE APOSTLES. 


TEACHING OF THE Lorp, THROUGH THE TWELVE APos- 
TLES, TO THE NATIONS. 


Cuap. I.—T'wo ways there are, one of life and one of 
death, but there isa creat difference between: the two 
ways. ‘The way of life, then, is this: First, thou shalt 
love the God who made thee; secondly, thy neighbor 
as thyself ; and all things whatsoever thou wouldst not 
have befall thee, thou, too, do not to another. Now 
of these words the teaching is this: Bless them that 
curse you, and pray for your enemies, and fast for 
them that persecute you: for what thank have ye if ye 

ὃ 


15 


20 


25. 


30 


AIAAXH ΤΩΝ ΔΏΔΕΚΑ ATIOSTOAQON. 


Lal Lal an aT \ 
ἐὰν ayaTrate τοὺς ἀγαπῶντας ὑμᾶς ; οὐχὶ καὶ τὰ 
397 ἊΝ 3 ΘᾺ, a) ς \ Ne A \ 
ἔϑνη τὸ αὐτὸ ποιοῦσιν ; ὑμεὶς δὲ ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς 

A ¢€ lal ΧΝ > (4 3 / 9 
μισοῦντας ὑμᾶς καὶ οὐχ ἕξετε ἐχϑρόν. ᾿Α πέχου 
τῶν σαρκικῶν καὶ κοσμικῶν ἐπιϑυμιῶν. ᾿Εάν 

δῷ ῥά α εἰς τὴν δεξιὰν σιαγόνα 
τις σοι δῷ ῥάπισμα εἰς τὴν γόνα, 

/ 3 A \ \ 7 \ BA 7 
στρέψον αὑτῷ καὶ τὴν ἄλλην, καὶ ἔσῃ τέλειος " 
ΦᾺΝ, 3 ΄ / / v4 ce 3 3 
ἐὰν ἀγγαρεύσῃ σέ τις μίλιον ἕν, ὕπωγε μετ᾽ av- 

na / aN 37 ἊΝ e / “ A 3 a 
τοῦ δύο" ἐὰν ἄρῃ τις TO ἱμάτιόν σου, δὸς αὐτῷ 
\ A a 24 / 2 \ n \ t 
καὶ TOV χυτῶνα" ἐὰν λάβῃ TLS ἀπὸ σοῦ TO σόν, 
μὴ ἀπαίτει" οὐδὲ γὰρ δύνασαι. Παντὶ τῷ ai- 
a / n 
τοῦντί σε δίδου Kal μὴ ἀπαίτει" πᾶσι yap ϑέλει 
/ ξ \ 3 n 20 7 i 
δίδοσϑαν ὁ πατὴρ ἐκ τῶν ἰδίων χαρισμάτων. 
ς la) 
Μακάριος ὁ διδοὺς κατὰ τὴν ἐντολήν" ἀϑῶος 
tA 3 2 ἮΝ A / 3 \ εἶ 
γάρ ἐστιν" οὐαὶ τῷ λαμβάνοντι" εἰ μὲν γὰρ 
5 a e 
χρείαν ἔχων λαμβάνει τις, ἀϑῶος ἔσται" ὁ δὲ 
\ 7] 57 J fi ς ΧΡ \ > 
μὴ χρείαν ἔχων δώσει δίκην, ἱνατί ἔλαβε καὶ εἰς 
73 A Χ 7 3 / \ 
τί, ἐν συνοχῇ δὲ γενόμενος ἐξετασϑήσεταν περὶ 
ce 7 ἕξ \ 3 3 Ἂ 7 é 28 7 
ὧν ἔπραξε, καὶ οὐκ ἐξελεύσεται ἐκεῖϑεν μέχρις 
οὗ ἀποδῷ τὸν ἔσχατον κοδράντην. ᾿Αλλὰ καὶ 
\ / Ἂ 5 ¢ / cr Vg 
περὶ τούτου δὴ εἴρηται" ᾿Ιδρωσάτω ἡ ἐλεημοσύ- 
Ν a / XN a 
vy cov εἰς TAS χεῖράς σου, μέχρις ἂν γνῷς τίνι 


das. 


35 Κεφ. β΄. Δευτέρα δὲ ἐντολὴ τῆς διδαχῆς Οὐ φονεύσεις, 


3 ΄ 5 / 3 Sr 
οὐ μοιχεύσεις, OV παιδοφϑορήσεις, οὐ πορνεύσεις, 
4 


TEACHING OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES. 


love them that love you? Do not the nations also the 
same? But love ye them that hate you and ye shall 
have no enemy. Abstain from the fleshly and worldly 
lusts. If any one give thee a blow on the right cheek, 
turn to him the other also, and thou shalt be perfect ; 
if any one compel thee to go one mile, go with him 
two; if any one take thy cloak, give him thy tunic also; 
if any one take from thee what is thine, ask it not 
back; for indeed thou canst not. To every one that 
asketh thee give, and ask not back; for to all the 
Father desires to give of his own gracious gifts. Blessed 
is he that giveth according to the commandment ; for 
he is guiltless; wo to him that taketh; for if, indeed, 
one taketh who hath need, he shall be guiltless ; but he 
who hath no need shall give account, why he took, and 
for what purpose, and coming under arrest shall be ex- 
amined concerning what he did, and shall not go out 
thence until he pay the last farthing. But it hath 
been also said concerning this matter: Let thine alms 
sweat in thy hands, until thou knowest to whom thou 


shouldst give. 


Cuap. Il.—Now the second commandment of the 
teaching 2s: Thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not commit 
adultery, thou shalt not corrupt boys, thou shalt not 

5 


40 


45 


ὃ0 Keg. 


55 


60 


AIAAXH ΤΩΝ AQAEKA ATIOSTOAQON. 


3 ig 3 , 3 , 3 
οὐ κλέψεις, οὐ μαγεύσεις, οὐ φαρμακεύσεις, οὐ 
4 7 2 a 50. x > 
φονεύσεις τέκνον ἐν φϑορᾷ οὐδὲ γεννηϑὲν ἀπο- 
κτενεῖς. Οὐκ ἐπιϑυμήσεις τὰ τοῦ πλησίον, 
3 3 / 3 Va > 
οὐκ ἐπιορκήσεις, OV ψευδομαρτυρήσεις, οὐ κακο- 
λογήσεις, οὐ μνησικακήσεις. Οὐκ ἔσῃ διυγνώμων 
οὐδὲ δύγλωσσος " παγὶς γὰρ ϑανάτου ἡ SuyAwo- 
σία. Οὐκ ἔσται ὁ λόγος σου ψευδής, οὐ κενός, 
ἀλλὰ μεμεστωμένος πράξει. Οὐκ ἔσῃ πλεονέκ- 
3 Eee: 9 \ e \ 3 Xx / 
της οὐδὲ ἅρπαξ οὐδὲ ὑποκριτὴς οὐδὲ κακοήϑης 
οὐδὲ ὑπερήφανος. Οὐ λήψῃ βουλὴν πονηρὰν 
Q\ fal / 3 ᾽ be 5 
κατὰ τοῦ πλησίον cov. Οὐ μισήσεις πάντα ἄν- 
JIpwrrov, ἀλλὰ ods μὲν ἐλέγξεις, περὶ δὲ ὧν προσ- 


7 ἃ Nee / € \ \ , 
εὔξῃ, ods δὲ ἀγαπήσεις ὑπὲρ τὴν ψυχήν σου. 


4 4 “ 3 > x le) \ 
γ΄. Τέκνον pov, φεῦγε ἀπὸ παντὸς πονηροῦ Kat 
3 \ \ Ξ (ὦ 3 a \ / 2 , ὃ 
ἀπὸ παντὸς ομοίου αὐτοῦ" Μὴ γίνου ὀργίλος " 
ὁδηγεῖ γὰρ ἡ ὀργὴ πρὸς τὸν φόνον" μηδὲ ζηλω- 

δ Χ 3 \ ys 4 3 N ‘a 
τὴς μηδὲ ἐριστικὸς μηδὲ ϑυμικός - ἐκ γὰρ τού- 
των ἁπάντων φόνοι γεννῶνται. Τέκνον μου, μὴ 

I > / ε La \ cy 3 ‘ Ν 
γίνου ἐπιϑυμητής " ὁδηγεῖ γὰρ ἡ ἐπιϑυμία πρὸς 
τὴν πορνείαν " μηδὲ αἰσχρολόγος μηδὲ ὑψηλόφ- 
ϑαλμος " ἐκ γὰρ τούτων ἀπάντων μουχεῖαι γεν- 
νῶνται. Τέκνον μου, μὴ γίνου οἰωνοσκόπος " 
ἐπειδὴ ὁδηγεῖ εἰς τὴν εἰδωλολατρείαν᾽" μηδὲ ἐπα- 
οὐδὸς μηδὲ μαϑηματικὸς μηδὲ περικαϑαίρων, 

' 6 


TEACHING OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES. 


commit fornication, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not 
practise magic, thou shalt not use sorcery, thou shalt 
not slay a child by abortion, nor what is begotten shalt 
thou destroy. Thou shalt not lust after the things 
of thy neighbor, thou shalt not forswear thyself, 
thou shalt not bear false witness, thou shalt not re- 
vile, thou shalt not bear malice. Thou shalt not be 
doubled-minded nor doubled-tongued; for a snare of 
death is the double tongue. | Thy speech shall not be 
false, nor empty, but filled with doing. Thou shalt not 
be covetous, nor rapacious, nor a hypocrite, nor malicious, 
nor arrogant. ‘Thou shalt not take evil counsel against 
thy neighbor.| Thou shalt hate no man, but some thou 
shalt reprove, and for some thou shalt pray, and some 
thou shalt love above thy life. 


Cuap. I1].—My child, flee from every evil thing, and 
from everything like it. Be not inclined to anger, for 
anger leadeth to murder; nor jealous, nor contentious, 
nor passionate ; for of all these murders are begotten. 
My child, become not lustful; for lust leadeth to for- 
nication ; nor foul-mouthed, nor lofty-eyed ; for of all 
these things adulteries are begotten. My child, become 
not an omen-watcher; since it leadeth into idolatry ; 
nor an enchanter, nor an astrologer, nor a purifier, nor 

7 


65 


το 


τὸ 


Κεφ. δ΄. 


δ0 


AIAAXH TQN AQAEKA ΑΠΟΣΤΟΛΩΝ. 


μηδὲ ϑέλε αὐτὰ βλέπειν" ἐκ yap τούτων ἅπάν- 
Tov εἰδωλολατρεία γεννῶται. Τέκνον μου, μὴ 
γίνου ψεύστης" ἐπειδὴ ὁδηγεῖ τὸ ψεῦσμα εἰς 
τὴν κλοπήν " μηδὲ φιλάργυρος μηδὲ κενόδοξος" 
3 \ ’ e ZL \ A , 
ἐκ yap τούτων ἁπάντων κλοπαὶ γεννῶνται. Téx- 
νον μου. μὴ γίνου γόγγυσος " ἐπειδὴ ὁδηγεῖ εἰς τὴν 
βλασφημίαν : μηδὲ αὐϑάδης μηδὲ πονηρόφρων- 
3 \ ΄ ΕἸ , A { 
ἐκ yap τούτων ἁπάντων βλασφημίαι γεννῶνται. 
Ἴσϑι δὲ mpais, ἐπεὶ οἱ πραεῖς κληρονομήσουσι 
τὴν γῆν. Γίνου μακρόϑυμος καὶ ἐλεήμων καὶ 
3 Weis » Δ 9 N \ f \ 
ἄκακος καὶ ἡσύχιος Kal ayados καὶ τρέμων τοὺς 
λόγους διὰ παντός, ods ἤκουσας. Οὐκ ὑψώσεις 
σεαυτὸν οὐδὲ δώσεις τῇ ψυχῇ σου ϑράσος. Οὐ 
κολληϑήσεται ἡ ψυχή σου μετὰ ὑψηλῶν, ἀλλὰ 
Ἂ ΄ \ lal > 7 \ 
μετὰ δικαίων καὶ ταπεινῶν ἀναστραφήσῃ. Τὰ 
- > ia φᾷ >) \ 
συμβαίνοντά σοι ἐνεργήματα ws ἀγαϑὰ προσ- 


δέξῃ, εἰδὼς ὅτι ἄτερ Θεοῦ οὐδὲν γίνεται. 


Τέκνον μου, τοῦ λαλοῦντός σοι τὸν λόγον τοῦ 
Θεοῦ μνησϑήσῃ νυκτὸς καὶ ἡμέρας, τιμήσεις δὲ 
αὐτὸν ὡς Κύριον" ὅϑεν γὰρ ἡ κυριότης λαλεῖται, 
ἐκεὶ Κύριός ἐστιν. ᾿Εἰκζητήσεις δὲ kal ἡμέραν 
Ta πρόσωπα τῶν ἁγίων, ἵνα ἐπαναπαύῃ τοῖς 
λόγοις αὐτῶν. Οὐ ποϑήσεις σχίσμα, εἰρηνεύ- 
σεις δὲ μαχομένους " κρινεῖς δικαίως, οὐ λήψῃ 
8 


TEACHING OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES. 


be willing to look upon these things; for of all these 
things idolatry is begotten. My child, become not a 
liar ; since lying leads to theft; nor avaricious, nor vain- 
glorious; for of all these things thefts are begotten. 
My child, become not a murmurer; since it leads to 
blasphemy ; nor presumptuous, nor evil-minded ; for of 
all these things blasphemies are begotten. But be meek, 
since the meek shall inherit the earth. Become long- 
suffering and pitiful and guileless and gentle and good, 
and tremble continually at the words which thou hast 
heard. Thon shalt not exalt thyself, nor permit over- 
boldness to thy soul. Thy soul shall not cleave to the 
high, but with the righteous and lowly thou shalt 
dwell. The things that befall thee accept as well- 
wrought, knowing that without God nothing occurs. 


Cuar. [V.—My child, him that speaks to thee the 
word of God remember night and day, and thou shalt 
honor him as the Lord; for where that which pertaineth 
to the Lord is spoken there the Lord is. And thou shalt 
seek out daily the faces of the saints that thou mayst be 
refreshed by their words. Thou shalt not desire division, 
but shalt make peace between those who contend ; thou 


9 


90 


95 


100 


105 


AIAAXH ΤΩΝ AQAEKA ΑΠΟΣΤΟΛΩΝ, 


πρόσωπον ἐλέγξαι ἐπὶ παραπτώμασιν. Ov δι- 
/ , ” x 3, « \ 7 \ 
ψυχήσεις, πότερον ἔσται ἢ ov, . Μὴ γίνου πρὸς 
\ \ a ᾽ / \ lal pr \ \ 
μὲν τὸ λαβεῖν ἐκτείνων Tas χεῖρας, πρὸς δὲ τὸ 


δοῦναι συσπῶν᾽" ἐὰν ἔχῃς, διὰ τῶν χειρῶν σου 


δώσεις λύτρωσιν ἁμαρτιῶν σου. Οὐ διστάσεις 


ὃ a +Q\ \ us 4 \ / 
ovvat οὐδὲ διδοὺς γογγύσεις " γνώσῃ yap τίς 
3 ε A A \ 3 , > 
ἐστιν ὁ τοῦ μισϑοῦ καλὸς ἀνταποδότης. Οὐκ 
ἀποστραφήσῃ τὸν ἐνδεόμενον, συγκοινωνήσεις 
Χ / Aes ΔΝ Ν > > NTE 2 
δὲ πάντα TO ἀδελφῷ Gov Kal οὐκ ἐρεῖς ἴδια εἶναι" 
5 \ > aA > ΨΖ 3 ᾿ς 
εἰ γὰρ ἐν τῷ ἀϑανάτῳ κοινωνοί ἐστε, πόσῳ 
μᾶλλον ἐν τοῖς ϑνητοῖς ; Οὐκ ἀρεῖς τὴν χεῖρά 
σου ἀπὸ τοῦ υἱοῦ σου ἢ ἀπὸ τῆς ϑυγατρός σου, 
ἀλλὰ ἀπὸ νεότητος διδάξεις τὸν φόβον τοῦ 
Θεοῦ. Οὐκ ἐπιτάξεις δούλῳ σου ἢ παιδίσκῃ, 
“ 5 \ \ 3 Ἂν x 3 7ὕ 3 , 
τοῖς ἐπὶ τὸν αὐτὸν Θεὸν ἐλπίζουσιν, ἐν πικρίᾳ 
Vi 3 \ 7 \ pee) > 
σου, μήποτε ov μὴ φοβηϑήσονται τὸν ἐπ᾽ ἀμ- 
φοτέροις Θεόν" οὐ γὰρ ἔρχεται κατὰ πρόσωπον 
καλέσαι, ἀλλ᾽ ἐφ᾽ ods τὸ πνεῦμα ἡτοίμασεν. 
Ὑμεῖς δὲ οἱ δοῦλοι ὑποτωγήσεσϑε τοῖς κυρίοις 
e n ¢€ vA an > 9 fe \ fr 
ὑμῶν ws τύπῳ Θεοῦ ἐν αἰσχύνῃ Kal φόβῳ. 
? an e , Ἂ a A at 3 
Μισήσεις πᾶσαν ὑπόκρισιν καὶ πᾶν ὃ μὴ ἀρεσ- 
a > Ἂ 
τὸν τῷ Κυρίῳ. Οὐ μὴ ἐγκαταλίπῃς ἐντολὰς 
7) 7 ν ἃ lL pone 
Κυρίου, φυλάξεις δὲ ἃ παρέλαβες, μήτε προστι- 
> an ? of , 
Seis μήτε ἀφαιρῶν. ᾽ν ἐκκλησίᾳ ἐξομολογήσῃ 
7 5 \ 
Ta παραπτώματά TOV, καὶ οὐ προσελεύσῃ ἐπὶ 


10 


TEACHING OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES. 


shalt judge justly, thou shalt not respect persons in con- 
victing for transgressions. Thou shalt not hesitate 
whether it shall be or not. Become not one who for tak- 
ing stretches out the hands, but for giving draws them 
in; if thou hast anything, by thy hands thou shalt give 
a ransom for thy sins. Thou shalt not hesitate to give, 
nor when giving shalt thou murmur, for thou shalt know 
who is the good dispenser of the recompense. Thou 
shalt not turn away the needy, but shalt share all things 
with thy brother, and shalt not say they are thine own; 
for if ve are partners in that which is imperishable, how 
much more in the perishable things? Thou shalt not 
take off thy hand from thy son and from thy daughter, 
but from youth thou shalt teach ¢hem the fear of God. 
“~ Thou shalt not lay commands in thy bitterness upon thy 
slave or handmaid, who hope in the same God, lest they 
perchance shalt not fear the God who is over yow both ; 
for he cometh not to call men according to the ap- 
pearance, but to those whom the Spirit hath made 
ready. And ye, slaves, ye shall be subject to your lords, 
as to God’s image, in modesty and fear. / Thou shalt 
hate every hypocrisy, and whatever is not pleasing to 
the Lord. Thou shalt by no means forsake the Lord’s 
commandments, but shalt guard what thou hast received, 


neither adding to it nor taking from it. In the church 
gal 


110 


Ked. ε΄. 


120 


125 


130 


Κεφ. ς΄. 


AIAAXH TON AQAEKA ΑΠΟΣΤΟΛΩΝ. 


/ 3 5 ΄ - AS 
προσευχήν σου εν συνειόοήῆσει TOVHPa. UT?) 


ἐστὶν ἡ ὁδὸς τὴς ζωῆς. 


Ἢ δὲ τοῦ ϑανάτου ὁδός ἐστιν αὕτη" πρῶτον 
πάντων πονηρά ἐστι καὶ κατάρας μεστή" φόνοι, 
μοιχεῖαι, ἐπιϑυμίαι, πορνεῖαι, κλοπαί, εἰδωλο- 
λατρεῖαι, μωγεῖαι, φαρμακεῖαι, ἁρπωγαί, ψευδο- 
μαρτυρίαι, ὑποκρίσεις, δυιπλοκαρδία, δόλος, ὑπερ- 
ηφανία, κακία, αὐϑάδεια, πλεονεξία, αἰσχρολο- 
γία, ζηλοτυπία, ϑρασύτης, ὕψος, ἀλαζονεία " 
διῶκται ἀγαϑῶν, μισοῦντες ἀλήϑειαν, ἀγαπῶν. 
τες ψεῦδος, οὐ γινώσκοντες μισϑὸν δικαιο- 
σύνης, οὐ κολλώμενοι ἀγαϑῷ οὐδὲ κρίσει δι- 
καίᾳ, ἀγρυπνοῦντες οὐκ εἰς τὸ ἀγαϑόν, GAN 
εἰς τὸ πονηρόν" ὧν μακρὰν πραὕὔτης καὶ ὕὑπο- 
μονή, μάταια ἀγαπῶντες, διώκοντες ἀνταπό- 
δομα, οὐκ ἐλεοῦντες πτωχόν, οὐ πονοῦντες ἐπὶ 
καταπονουμένῳ, οὐ γινώσκοντες τὸν ποιήσαντα 
αὐτούς, φονεῖς τέκνων, φϑορεῖς πλάσματος Θεοῦ, 
ἀποστρεφόμενοι τὸν ἐνδεόμενον, καταπονοῦντες 
τὸν ϑλιβόμενον, πλουσίων παράκλητοι, πενή- 
τῶν ἄνομοι κριταί, πανϑαμάρτητοι" ῥυσϑείητε, 


τέκνα, ἀπὸ τούτων ἁπάντων. 


ed lf , 3 + f A e fal 
Opa μή τις σε πλανήσῃ ἀπὸ ταύτης τῆς ὁδοῦ 
τῆς διδαχῆς, ἐπεὶ παρεκτὸς Θεοῦ σε διδάσκει. 


19 


TEACHING OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES. 


thou shalt confess thy transgressions, and shalt not come 
forward for thy prayer with an evil conscience. This 
is the way of life. 


παρ. V.—Now the way of death is this: first of 
all it is evil, and full of curse ; murders, adulteries, lusts, 
fornications, thefts, idolatries, magic arts, sorceries, rob- 
beries, false testimonies, hypocrisies, duplicity, craft, 
arrogance, vice, presumptuousness, greed, foul speech, 
jealousy, over-boldness, loftiness, pretence *“persecutors 
of the good, hating truth, loving falsehood, knowing not 
the reward of righteousness, not cleaving to that which 
7s good nor to righteous judgment, on the watch not 
for good but for evil; far from whom are meekness 
and humility, loving vanities, pursuing revenge, not 
pitying a poor man, not laboring for the distressed, not 
knowing him that made them, murderers of children, 
destroyers of the image of God, turning away the 
needy, oppressing the afflicted, advocates of the rich, 
lawless judges of the poor, universal sinners: may ye 


be delivered, children, from all these. 


Cuap. VI—See that no one lead thee astray from 
this way of the teaching, because apart from God does 


13 


Oo 


AIAAXH TQN AQAEKA ATIOSTOAON. 


Εἰ μὲν yap δύνασαι βαστάσαι ὅλον τὸν ζυγὸν 
τοῦ Κυρίου, τέλειος ἔσῃ" εἰ δ᾽ οὐ δύνασαι, ὃ δύνῃ 
τοῦτο ποίει. Περὶ δὲ τῆς βρώσεως, ὃ δύνασαι 
βάστασον" ἀπὸ δὲ τοῦ εἰδωλοϑύτου λίαν πρόσ- 


/ if 3 lal an 
eye’ λατρεία yap ἐστι Θεῶν νεκρῶν. 


Περὶ δὲ τοῦ βαπτίσματος, οὕτω βαπτίσατε" 
ταῦτα πάντα προειπόντες, βαπτίσατε εἰς τὸ 
57 ia \ \ la) cares 4 n id / 
ὄνομα τοῦ ]]ατρὸς καὶ τοῦ Tiov καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου 
Πνεύματος ἐν ὕδατι ζῶντι. ᾿Εὰν δὲ μὴ ἔχης 
ὕδωρ ζῶν, εἰς ἄλλο ὕδωρ βάπτισον" εἰ δ᾽ οὐ 
ΜΕ 3 “Ὁ 2 prs ? \ b] ’ 
δύνασαι ἐν ψυχρῷ, ἐν ϑερμῷ." ᾿Εὰν δε ἀμφότερα 
\ ” ” 2 Ἂ \ 4 ¢e/ 2 
μὴ ἔχῃς, ἔκχεον εἰς τὴν κεφαλὴν τρὶς ὕδωρ εἰς 
ὄνομα ]]ατρὸς καὶ Ὑἱοῦ καὶ ἁγίου Πνεύματος. 
Πρὸ δὲ τοῦ βαπτίσματος προνηστευσάτω ὁ βαπ- 
τίζων καὶ ὁ βαπτιζόμενος καὶ εἴ τινες ἄλλοι δύ- 
νανται" κελεύσεις δὲ νηστεῦσαι τὸν βαπτιζό- 


μενον πρὸ μιᾶς ἢ δύο. 


/ a A A 
Κεφ. η. At δὲ νηστεῖαι ὑμῶν μὴ ἔστωσαν μετὰ τῶν 


OU 


¢ fe it Ν ΄ 
ὑποκριτῶν: νηστεύουσι γὰρ δευτέρᾳ σαββά- 
των καὶ πέμπτῃ" ὑμεῖς δὲ νηστεύσατε τετ- 
pada καὶ παρασκευήν. Μηδὲ προσεύχεσθε 
ὡς οἱ ὑποκριταί, GAN ὡς ἐκέλευσεν ὁ Κύριος 
ἢ A 2 ῃ 3 a ef ’ 

ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ αὐτοῦ, οὕτω προσεύχεσϑε" 

14 


TEACHING OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES. 


he teach thee. [or if thou art able to bear the whole 
yoke of the Lord, thou shalt be perfect; but if thou art 
not able, what thou art able, that do.. And concerning 
food, what thou art able, bear; but of that offered to 
idols, beware exceedingly ; for it is a worship of dead 
gods. 


Cuar. VII.—Now concerning baptism, thus baptize 
ye: having first uttered all these things, baptize into the 
name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy 
Spirit, in running water. ~ But if thou hast not running 
water, baptize in other water; and if thou canst not in 
cold, ¢hen in warm.~ But if thou hast neither, pour 
water upon the head thrice, into the name of Father 
and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let 
the baptizer and the baptized fast, and whatever others 
can; but the baptized thou shalt command to fast for 
two or three days before. : 


ὕπαρ. VITI.—But let not your fastings be appointed 

in common with the hypocrites; for they fast on the 

second day of the week and on the fifth; but do ye fast 

during the fourth, and the preparation day. Nor pray 

ye like the hypocrites, but as the Lord commanded in his 
15 


- 


100 


175 


180 


AIAAXH ΤΩΝ AQAEKA ATIOSTOAQN. 


, a [4 a 9 a 

Πάτερ ἡμῶν ὁ ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ἁγιασϑήτω τὸ 
ὄνομά σου, ἐλθέτω ἡ βασιλεία σου, γενη- 

oot Ν \4 , € 3 > a SH. e) %, an 
ήτω TO VEANMA TOV ὡς ἐν οὐρανῷ Kal ἐπὶ γῆς" 
\ ” Cla \ 3 Ἀ coon ΄ ἱ 

τὸν ἄρτον ἡμῶν τὸν ἐπιούσιον δὸς ἡμῖν σήμε-᾿ 
\ 7 chan \ 2 Ἅ ς a ς ‘ 
pov καὶ ἄφες ἡμῖν τὴν οὀφείλην ἡμῶν ὡς Kat 
ἡμεῖς ἀφίεμεν τοῖς "ὀφειλέταις ἡμῶν, καὶ μὴ 
325 , δ᾿ > ΄ 9 ἈΠ ΓΕ ἐν es 
ELTEVEYKNS ἡμᾶς ELS πείρασμον, AAAA ρῦσαν ἡμᾶς 
ἀπὸ τοῦ πονηροῦ" ὅτι σοῦ ἐστιν ἡ δύναμις καὶ ἡ 

’ 3 \ IA \ a ες , “ 
δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας. Tpis τῆς ἡμέρας οὕτω 


προσεύχεσθε. 


\ A ,ὔ / ; 
Περὶ δὲ τῆς εὐχαριστίας, οὕτως εὐχαριστήσατε" 
πρῶτον περὶ τοῦ ποτηρίου" Εἰὐχαριστοῦμέν σοι, 
Πάτερ ἡμῶν, ὑπὲρ τῆς ἁγίας ἀμπέλου AaBis 
A / Ὁ 3 ΄, ὶ Ὁ “ Δ 99» fal 
Tov παιδός σου, ἧς ἐγνώρισας ἡμῖν διὰ ᾿Ιησοῦ 
τοῦ παιδός σου" σοὶ ἡ δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας. Περὶ 
δὲ τοῦ κλάσματος ' Εἰὐχαριστοῦμέν σοι, Πάτερ 
ἡμῶν, ὑπὲρ τῆς ζωῆς καὶ γνώσεως, ἧς ἐγνώρισας 
ἡμῖν διὰ ᾿Ιησοῦ τοῦ παιδός σου" σοὶ ἡ δόξα εἰς 
\ 7A ed ΩΝ Le} » 4 
τοὺς αἰῶνας. “Ὥσπερ ἣν τοῦτο κλάσμα διεσκορ- 
πισμένον ἐπάνω τῶν ὀρέων καὶ συναχϑὲν ἐγέ- 
Ψ ef ape nh eee ͵ Sos 
veto ἕν, οὕτω συναχ'δήτω σου ἡ ἐκκλησία ἀπὸ 
la) , A a 3 \ \ “ 
τῶν περάτων τῆς γῆς εἰς τὴν σὴν βασιλείαν " 
δ Lal . \ 2 ΄΄. 
ὅτι σοῦ ἐστιν ἡ δοξα καὶ ἡ δύναμις διὰ ᾿]ησοῦ 
a fo hee x \ i 
Χριστοῦ els τοὺς αἰῶνας. Mydeis δὲ φαγέτω 
“16 


TEACHING OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES. 


gospel, thus pray: Our Father who art in heaven, Hal- 
lowed be thy name, thy kingdom come, thy will be 
done, as in heaven, so on earth; our daily bread give us 
to-day, and forgive us our debt as we also forgive our 
debtors, and bring us not into temptation, but deliver us 
from the evil one; for thine is the power and the glory 
forever. Three times in the day pray ye thus. 


παρ. [X.—Now concerning the Eucharist, thus give 
thanks ; first, concerning the cup: We thank thee, our 
Father, for the holy vine of David thy servant, which 
thou hast made known to us through Jesus thy servant ; 
to thee be the glory forever. And concerning the 
broken dread: We thank thee, our Father, for the life 
and the knowledge which thou hast made known to us 
through Jesus thy servant; to thee be the glory forever. 
Just as this broken dread was scattered over the hills 
and having been gathered together became one, so let 
thy church be gathered together from the ends of the 
earth into thy kingdom; for thine is the glory and the 
power through Jesus Christ forever. But let no one eat 


17 


185 Κεφ. 


190 


195 


AIAAXH TQN ΔΏΔΕΚΑ ATIOSTOAQN. 


Ν / 5 Ἂ an b) , e A 5 5 ς 
μηδὲ πιέτω ἀπὸ τῆς εὐχαριστίας ὑμῶν, ἀλλ᾽ οἱ 
if > 9 7 Α x ‘ 
βαπτισϑέντες εἰς ὄνομα Κυρίου: καὶ yap περὶ 
/ 7 ς ΄ \ a Nee, “ 
τούτου εἴρηκεν 0 Κύριος - Mn δῶτε τὸ ἅγιον τοῖς 


’ 
Κύυσι. 


“. Μετὰ δὲ τὸ ἐμπλησϑῆναι οὕτως εὐχαριστή- 
> la) J ΄ A € \ an 
σατε" Εἰὐχαριστοῦμέν σοι, Πάτερ ἅγιε, ὑπὲρ τοῦ 
ayiov ὀνόματός σου, οὗ κατεσκήνωσας ἐν ταῖς 
καρδίαις ἡμῶν, καὶ ὑπὲρ τῆς γνώσεως καὶ πίσ- 
A ’ / “Ὁ 3 ν δ a Ν 
τεως καὶ ἀδανασίας" ἧς ἐγνώρισας ἡμῖν διὰ 
ΙΙησοῦ τοῦ παιδός σου" σοὶ ἡ δόξα εἰς τοὺς 
aA / “ ig ” : \ 
αἰῶνας. Σύ, δέσποτα παντοκράτορ, ἔκτισάς τὰ 
πάντα ἕνεκεν τοῦ ὀνόματός σου, τροφήν τε καὶ 
ή N 57 ἴω 3 7 3 2 / ind 
ποτὸν ἔδωκας τοῖς aVSpwTrols εἰς ἀπόλαυσιν ἵνα 
σοι εὐχαριστήσωσιν, ἡμῖν δὲ ἐχαρίσω πνευ- 
\ Ν \ Χ \ Χ 37 \ 
ματικὴν τροφὴν καὶ ποτὸν καὶ ζωὴν αἰώνιον διὰ 
τοῦ παιδός σου. Πρὸ πάντων εὐχαριστοῦμέν 
¢ \ 3 NPAC ἢ 2 x ΟΝ 
σοι ὅτι δυνατὸς εἶ" σοὶ ἡ δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας. 
la 7 n 3 “ “Ὁ ΞᾺ 
Μνήσϑητι, Κύριε, τῆς ἐκκλησίας σου τοῦ ῥύσα- 
Stu > Ν Ν a \ lal 
ONAL αὐτὴν ἀπὸ παντὸς πονηροῦ καὶ τελειῶσαι 
» \ 3 la) 3 / ‘ Ν ! > x > XN 
αὐτὴν ἐν τῇ ἀγάπῃ σου, Kal σύναξον αὐτὴν ἀπὸ 
a , an 3 
τῶν τεσσάρων ἀνέμων, τὴν ἁγιασϑεῖσαν εἰς τὴν 
\ "4 ἃ e€ / ’ a (v4 ἴω 
σὴν βασιλείαν, ἣν ἡτοίμασας αὐτῇ" ὅτι σοῦ 
3 ς , ἫΝ ς / >] \ IA 
ἐστιν ἡ δύναμις Kal ἡ δόξα εἰς TOUS αἰῶνας. 
᾿Ελϑέτω χάρις καὶ παρελϑέτω ὁ κόσμος οὗτος. 


18 


TEACHING OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES. 


or drink of your Eucharist, except those baptized into 
the Lord’s name; for in regard to this the Lord hath 
said: Give not that which is holy to the dogs. 


Cuap. X.—Now after ye are filled thus do ye give 
thanks: We thank thee, holy Father, for thy holy 
name, which thou hast caused to dwell in our hearts, 
and for the knowledge and faith and immortality which 
thou hast made known to us through Jesus thy servant ; 
to thee be the glory forever. Thou, Almighty Master, 
didst create all things for thy name’s sake; both food 
and drink thou didst give to men for enjoyment, in 
order that they might give thanks to thee; but to us 
thou hast graciously given spiritual food and drink 
and eternal life through thy servant. Before all things, 
we thank thee that thou art powerful; to thee be the 
glory forever. Remember, Lord, thy church, to de- 
liver it from every evil and to make it perfect in thy 
love, and gather it from the four winds, ὁ, the sancti- 
fied, into thy kingdom, which thou hast prepared for 
it; for thine is the power and the glory forever. — Let 
grace come and let this world pass away. Hosanna to 


205 


Κεφ. ta’. 
210 


215 


225 


» 


AIAAXH ΤΩΝ ΔΏΔΕΚΑ AIIOSTOAQN. 


‘Ncoavva τῷ υἱῷ Δαβίδ. Ei τις ἅγιός ἐστιν, ἐρ- 
χέσϑω:" εἴ τις οὐκ ἔστι, μετανοείτω᾽ apavadd. 
"Aunv. Tots δὲ προφήταις ἐπιτρέπετε εὐχα- 


ριστεῖν ὅσα δέλουσιν. 


Ὃς ἂν οὖν ἐλθὼν διδάξῃ ὑμᾶς ταῦτα πάντα, 
Ta προειρημένα, deEaoSe αὐτόν: ἐὰν δὲ αὐτὸς 
ὁ διδάσκων στραφεὶς διδάσκῃ ἄλλην διδαχὴν εἰς 

aN A \ ἂν nr 3 ih 3 \ \ 
TO καταλῦσαι, μὴ αὐτοῦ ἀκούσητε" εἰς δὲ TO 

A ' / \ A , 
προσϑεῖναι δικαιοσύνην καὶ γνῶσιν Κυρίου, 
δέξασϑε αὐτὸν ὡς Κύριον. Περὶ δὲ τῶν ἀποσ- 

Ul 4 A \ a 4 “ > 
τόλων καὶ προφητῶν κατὰ τὸ δόγμα τοῦ εὐαγ- 
γελίου, οὕτω ποιήσατε. Πᾶς δὲ ἀπόστολος 
9 , \ ς: δα 7 e , 9 
ἐρχόμενος πρὸς ὑμᾶς δεχϑήτω ὡς Κύριος" οὐ 

a \ δ, Σ ! EN \ ΜΕ / \ a 
μενεῖ δὲ ἡμέραν μίαν" ἐὰν δὲ ἢ χρεία, καὶ τὴν 
ἄλλην: τρεῖς δὲ ἐὰν μείνῃ, ψευδοπροφήτης 
ἐστίν. ᾿Εξερχόμενος δὲ ὁ ἀπόστολος μηδὲν λαμ- 
B 2 Fan ” Ψ ce 3 QF 3N\ δὲ > 

ἀνέτω εἰμὴ ἄρτον ἕως οὗ αὐλισδῇ " ἐὰν δὲ ἀρ- 

γύριον αἰτῇ, ψευδοπροφήτης ἐστί. Καὶ πάντα 
7, a 5 Σ ", > / 

προφήτην λαλοῦντα ἐν πνεύματι οὐ πειράσετε 

οὐδὲ διακρινεῖτε: πᾶσα γὰρ ἁμαρτία ἀφεϑή- 

ec \ € e t > 3 ͵ ᾽ 

σεται, αὕτη δὲ ἡ ἁμαρτία οὐκ ἀφεϑήσεται. Οὐ 

A Nile an > ’ , > ͵ 
πᾶς δὲ ὁ λαλῶν ἐν πνεύματι προφήτης ἐστίν, 

3 ΄ : 5 
ἀλλ᾽ ἐὰν ἔχῃ τοὺς Ὑρόπους Κυρίου. “Amo οὖν 

a , 7 © / \ 
τῶν τρόπων γνωσδήσεται ὃ ψευδοπροφήτης καὶ 

“0 


TEACHING OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES. 


the son of David! Whoever is holy, let him come; 
whoever is not, let him repent. Maranatha. Amen. 
But permit the prophets to give thanks as much as they 


will. 


Cuap. XI.—Now whoever cometh and teacheth you 
all these things, before spoken, receive him ; but if the 
teacher himself turn aside and teach another teaching, 
so as to overthrow ¢his, do not hear him; but {7 he teach 
so as to promote righteousness and knowledge of the 
Lord, receive him as the Lord. But in regard to the 
apostles and prophets, according to the ordinance of the 
gospel, so do ye. And every apostle who cometh to you, 
let him be received as the Lord; but he shall not remain 
more than one day; if, however, there be need, then 
the next day ; but if he remain three days, he is a false 
prophet. But when the apostle departeth, let him take 
nothing except bread enough till he lodge again ; but 
if he ask money, he is a false prophet. And every 
prophet who speaketh in the spirit, ye shall not try 
nor judge; for every sin shall be forgiven, but this sin 
shall not be forgiven. But not every one that speaketh 
in the spirit is a prophet, but only if he have the ways 
of the Lord. So from their ways shall the false prophet 

21 


230 


255 


240 


AIAAXH TON AQAEKA ATIOSTOAQN. 


\ “Ὁ 
ὁ προφήτης. Καὶ πᾶς προφήτης ὁρίζων τρά- 
5 , b) , > b] 2 LES IO \ 
πεζαν ἐν πνεύματι, οὐ φάγεται ἀπ᾽ αὐτῆς, cide 
μήγε ψευδοπροφήτης ἐστί, πᾶς δὲ προφήτης 
διδάσκων τὴν ἀλήϑειαν, εἰ ἃ διδάσκει οὐ ποιεῖ, 
ψευδοπροφήτης ἐστί. Πᾶς δὲ προφήτης δεδοκι- 
, - 
μασμένος, ἀληϑινός, ποιῶν εἰς μυστήριον κοσμι- 
XN 3 , \ / \ lal Ὁ ϑέψον 
κὸν ἐκκλησίας, μὴ διδάσκων δὲ ποιεῖν ὅσα αὐτὸς 
ποιεῖ, οὐ κριθήσεται ἐφ᾽ ὑμῶν "Γμετὰ Θεοῦ γὰρ 
ἔχει τὴν κρίσιν: ὠσαύτως γὰρ ἐποίησαν καὶ οἱ 
5 A a « 2 Ἃ » 2 t 
ἀρχαῖοι προφῆται. νὸς δ᾽ ἂν εἴπη ἐν πνεύματι" 
' b) , Ἄς of , 3 3 If 
Aos μοι ἀργύρια ἢ ἕτερά τινα, οὐκ ἀκούσεσϑε 
3 a ὟΝ \ i ” Ὁ, 7 yy 
αὐτοῦ" ἐὰν δὲ περὶ ἄλλων ὑστερούντων εἴπῃ 


A 4 
δοῦναι, μηδεὶς αὐτὸν κρινέτω. 


Κεφ. ιβ΄. Πᾶς δὲ ὁ ἐρχόμενος ἐν ὀνόματι Κυρίου δεχ- 


245 


250 


V4 37 4 ΄’ 9 Ἂς 6 
ϑήτω, ἔπειτα δὲ δοκιμάσαντες αὐτὸν γνώσεσϑε:" 
, Ν (A ὃ \ \ 69. ? oye yt 
σύνεσιν yap ἕξετε δεξιὰν καὶ ἀριστεράν. Εἰμὲν. 
f r > ee} ’ a 3 ey, 
παρόδιός ἐστιν ὁ ἐρχόμενος, βοηϑεῖτε αὐτῷ ὅσον 
, > - \ Δ ¢ “ 2 \ 7 BY 
δύνασθε: ov μενεῖ δὲ πρὸς ὑμᾶς εἰ μὴ δύο ἢ 
τρεῖς ἡμέρας, ἐὰν ἢ ἀνάγκη. Hi δὲ θέλει πρὸς 
Ψ “Ὁ “ if by 4 2 4 \ 
ὑμᾶς καθῆσαι, τεχνίτης ὦν, ἐργαζέσϑω καὶ 
φαγέτω᾽ εἰ δὲ οὐκ ἔχει τέχνην, κατὰ τὴν σύνεσιν 
ὑμῶν προνοήσατε, πῶς μὴ ἀργὸς μεθ᾽ ὑμῶν ζήσε- 
4 ’ 3 > Ms WA La} 
Tat χριστιανός. Εἰ δ᾽ ov θέλει οὕτω ποιεῖν, χρισ- 
, a / 
τέμπορός ἐστι" προσέχετε ἀπὸ τῶν τοιούτων. 
22 


TEACHING OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES. 


and the prophet be known. And no prophet who or- 
ders a meal, in the spirit, eateth of it, unless indeed he 
is a false prophet ;/ and every prophet who teacheth the 
truth, if he do not that which he teacheth, is a false 
prophet. But every prophet, proved, true, acting with 
a view to the mystery of the church on earth, but not 
teaching others to do all that he himself doeth, shall 
not be judged among you; for with God he hath his 
judgment; for so did the ancient prophets also. But 
whoever, in the spirit, says: Give me money, or some- 
thing else, ye shall not hear him; but if for others in 
need, he bids you give, let no one judge him. 


Cuar. XIJ.—But let every one that cometh in the 
Lord’s name be received, but afterward ye shall test and 
know him; for ye shall have understanding, right and 
left. If he who comes is a traveller, help him as much ΄ 
as ye can; but he shall not remain with you, unless for 
two or three days, if there be necessity. But if he will 
take up his abode among you, being an artisan, let him 
work and.so eat; but if he have no trade, provide, 
according to your understanding, that no idler live 
with you asa Christian. But if he will not act accord- 
ing to this, he is one who makes gain out of Christ ; be- 


ware of such. 
23 


Κεφ. ty” 


bo 
Or 
Or 


260 


Κεφ. ιδ΄. 


270 


275 


AIAAXH TQN AQAEKA ATIOSTOAQON. 


Πᾶς δὲ προφήτης ἀληϑινός, ϑέλων καϑῆσαι 
\ Ὁ A 47 if 3 a A =) a c 7 
πρὸς ὑμᾶς, ἄξιός ἐστι τῆς τροφῆς αὐτοῦ. ᾿Ὠσαύ- 
τως διδάσκαλος ἀληϑινός ἐστιν ἄξιος καὶ av- 
f er ς 3 / n n 2 n an 
TOS, ὥςπερ ὁ ἐργάτης, τῆς τροφῆς αὐτοῦ. ITa- 
σαν οὗν ἀπαρχὴν γεννημάτων ληνοῦ καὶ ἅλωνος, 
βοῶν τε καὶ προβάτων λαβὼν δώσεις τοῖς προ- 
φήταις" αὐτοὶ γάρ εἰσιν at ἀρχιερεῖς ὑμῶν. 
9 \ \ . » 7, r a ox 
Eady δὲ μὴ ἔχητε προφήτην, δότε τοῖς πτωχοῖς. 
᾿Εὰν σιτίαν ποιῆς, τὴν ἀπαρχὴν λαβὼν δὸς κατὰ 
τὴν ἐντολήν. ᾿ὥσαύτως κεράμιον οἴνου ἢ ἐλαίου 
ἀνοίξας, τὴν ἀπαρχὴν λαβὼν δὸς τοῖς προφήταις" 
ἀργυρίου δὲ καὶ ἱματισμοῦ καὶ παντὸς κτήματος 
λαβὼν τὴν ἀπαρχὴν ὡς ἄν σοι δόξῃ, δὸς κατὰ 


\ 3 / 
τὴν ἐντολήν. 


Κατὰ κυριακὴν δὲ Κυρίου συναχϑέντες κλά- 
σατε ἄρτον καὶ εὐχαριστήσατε προσεξομολογη- 
σάμενοι τὰ παραπτώματα ὑμῶν, ὅπως καϑαρὰ 
ἡ θυσία ὑμῶν ἢ. Πᾶς δὲ ἔχων τὴν ἀμφιβολίαν 

\ Ae ΄, 3 a \ Id Ct IN v4 
μετὰ τοῦ ἑταίρου αὐτοῦ μὴ συνελθέτω ὑμῖν, ἕως 
οὗ διαλλαγῶσιν, ἵνα μὴ κοινωθῇ ἡ θυσία ὑμῶν" 
αὕτη γάρ ἐστιν ἡ ῥηθεῖσα ὑπὸ Κυρίου: ᾿Εν 
παντὶ τόπῳ καὶ χρόνῳ προσφέρειν μοι θυσίαν 
καϑαράν : ὅτι βασιλεὺς μέγας εἰμί, λέγει Κύρι- 

Ν \ oo if 0 \ > nN ἔθ 
ος, καὶ τὸ ὄνομά μου θαυμαστὸν ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσι. 
94 


TEACHING OF ‘THE TWELVE APOSTLES. 


Cuar. XIII.—But every true prophet who will set- 
tle among you is worthy of his support. Likewise a 
true teacher, he also is worthy, like the workman, of 
his support. Every firstfruit, then, of the products of 
wine-press and threshing-floor, of oxen and of sheep, 
thou shalt take and give to the prophets; for they are 
your high-priests. But if ye have no prophet, give zz to 
the poor. If thou makest a baking of bread, take the 
first of it and give according to the commandment. In 
like manner when thou openest a jar of wine or oil, take 
the first of z and give to the prophets ; and of money and 
clothing and every possession take the first, as seems 
right to thee, and give according to the commandment. 


Cuar. XIV.—But on the Lord’s day do ye assemble © 
and break bread, and give thanks, after confessing your 
transgressions, in order that your sacrifice may be pure. 
But every one that hath controversy with his friend, let 
him not come together with you, until they be reconciled, 
that your sacrifice may not be profaned. For this is 
that which was spoken by the Lord: At every place and 
time, bring me a pure sacrifice ; for a great king am JI, 
saith the Lord, and my name is marvellous among the 
nations. 


Κεφ. ιε΄. 


280 


285 


295 


300 


AIAAXH ΤΩΝ AQAEKA ΑΠΟΣΤΟΛΩΝ. 


Χειροτονήσατε οὖν ἑαυτοῖς ἐπισκόπους καὶ 
, » , la! / yy "“ \ 
διακόνους ἀξίους Tov Κυρίου, ἄνδρας πραεῖς καὶ 
ἀφιλαργύρους καὶ ἀληθεῖς καὶ δεδοκιμασμένους" 
ς: κα sth, a \ Cea asian ἢ 
uly yap λενιτουργοῦυσι καὶ αὑτοὶ τὴν λευιτουργί- 
αν τῶν προφητῶν καὶ διδασκάλων. [Μὴ οὗν 
ς 4 3 ΄ 3 \ ξ΄ τὶ Ἔ 7 
ὑπερίδητε αὐτούς " αὐτοὶ γάρ εἰσιν οἱ τετιμημέ- 
ς an Ἀ an A \ 7 

νον ὑμῶν μετὰ τῶν προφητῶν καὶ διδασκάλων. 
᾿Ελέγχετε δὲ ἀλλήλους μὴ ἐν ὀργῇ, ἀλλ᾽ ἐν 
ede A e 3 3 a 3 7 \ SS 
εἰρήνῃ, ὡς ἔχετε ἐν TO εὐωγγελίῳ " καὶ παντὶ 
9 las \ fae die fA \ if ‘ 
ἀστοχοῦντι KATA τοῦ ἑτέρου μηδεὶς λαλείτω μηδὲ 
διὺνθ - » , Φ ᾿ / δ \ 
παρ ὑμῶν ἀκουέτω, ἕως οὗ μετανοήσῃ. Τὰς δὲ 
Ψ \ e fal \ \ 3 , x ὁ ἂν 
εὐχὰς ὑμῶν καὶ τὰς ἐλεημοσύνας καὶ πάσας τὰς 
πράξεις οὕτω ποιήσατε, ὡς ἔχετε ἐν τῷ εὐαγγε- 


λίῳ τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν. 


Γρηγορεῖτε ὑπὲρ τῆς ζωῆς ὑμῶν: οἱ λύχνοι 
ς a \ 7 \ ς Ἂ Υ ἡ ς A Ἂν 
ὑμῶν μὴ σβεσθήτωσαν, καὶ αἱ ὀσφύες ὑμῶν μὴ 
ἐκλυέσθωσαν, ἀλλὰ γίνεσθε ἕτοιμοι " οὐ yap 
5) \ Φ 3 @ ς la (4 nA 39) 
οἴδατε τὴν ὥραν, ἐν ἣ ὁ Κύριος ἡμῶν ἔρχεται. 
Πυκνῶς δὲ συναχθήσεσθε ζητοῦντες τὰ ἀνήκον- 

A lal id A b ] \ 3 Ve € a 
Ta ταῖς ψυχαῖς ὑμῶν" ov yap ὠφελήσει ὑμᾶς 
ὁ πᾶς χρόνος τῆς πΐἵστεως ὑμῶν, ἐὰν μὴ ἐν τῷ 

3 7 lal lal 3 i "ἢ lal 3 4 
ἐσχάτῳ καιρῷ τελειωθῆτε. ᾿Εν yap ταῖς ἐσχά- 
ταῖς ἡμέραις πληθυνθήσονται οἱ ψευδοπροφῆται 

\ ς A Q , \ 3 
καὶ οἱ φθορεῖς καὶ στραφήσονται τὰ πρόβατω 

26 


TEACHING OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES. 


Cuap. X V.—Now appoint for yourselves bishops and 
deacons worthy of the Lord, men meek and not ava- 
ricious, and upright and proved; for they, too, render 
you the service of the prophets and teachers. Despise 
them not, therefore; for they are the ones who are 
honored of you, together with the prophets and teachers. 

And reprove one another, not in anger, but in peace, 
as ye have zz in the gospel; and to every one who erreth 
against another, let no one speak, nor let him hear any- 
thing from you, until he repent. But your prayers and 
your alms and all your deeds so do ye, as ye have 7 
in the gospel of our Lord. 


ὕπαρ. XVJ.—Watch for your life’s sake; let your 
lamps not go out, and your loins not be relaxed, but be 
ready ; for ye know not the hour in which our Lord com- 
eth. But ye shall come together often, and seek the 
things which befit your souls; for the whole time of your 
faith thus far will not profit you, if ye do not be- 
come perfect in the last time. For in the last days 
the false prophets and the corruptors shall be multiplied, 
and the sheep shall be turned into wolves, and love 


2% 


305 


910 


618 


AIAAXH ΤῺΝ AQAEKA ΑΠΟΣΤΟΛΩΝ. 


Ψ ’ \ δ b] , Lh 3 al 
εἰς λύκους καὶ ἡ ἀγάπη στραφήσεταιν εἰς μῖσος " 
5 , \ n > ph V4 3 / 
avEavovons yap τῆς ἀνομΐας, μισήσουσιν ἀλλή- 
[4 

λους καὶ διώξουσι καὶ παραδώσουσι, καὶ τότε 
7, ξ / ς τι n ΤΩΣ ἃ 
φανήσεται ὁ κοσμοπλάνος ὡς υἱὸς Θεοῦ καὶ ποι- 
NOEL ONMELA καὶ τέρατα, καὶ ἡ γῆ παραδοθήσε- 
an a VA ἃ 
ται εἰς χεῖρας αὐτοῦ, καὶ ποιήσει ἀθέμυτα, ἃ 

507 , 5 dA ; tone res 
οὐδέποτε γέγονεν ἐξ αἰῶνος., Τότε ἥξει ἡ κτίσις 
τῶν ἀνθρώπων εἰς τὴν πύρωσιν τῆς δοκιμασίας 
καὶ σκανδωλισθήσονται πολλοὶ καὶ ἀπολοῦνται, ᾿ 
ς \ ς / > A Fa 3 n , 
οἱ δὲ ὑπομείναντες ἐν TH πίστει αὐτῶν σωθή- 

7 

ς 5 » a n , Nee Mad 
σονται UT αὐτοῦ Tov καταθέματος. Καὶ τότε 
φανήσεται τὰ σημεῖα τῆς ἀληθείας" πρῶτον, 
σημεῖον ἐκπετάσεως ἐν οὐρανῷ, εἶτα σημεῖον 
φωνῆς σάλπιγγος καὶ τὸ τρίτον ἀνάστασις νε- 

r 3 

κρῶν " οὐ πάντων δέ, ἀλλ᾽ ὡς ἐρρέθη: Ἥξει ὁ 

΄ \ / e τὰ 3 3 a Ui 
Κύριος καὶ πάντες οἱ ἅγιοι per αὐτοῦ. Τότε 

ει ς ἐᾷ ΧΝ tA > , > Ψ 
ὄψεται ὁ κόσμος τὸν Κύριον ἐρχόμενον ἐπάνω 


aA a nN 3 la) 
TOV νεφελῶν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ. 


TEACHING OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES. 


shall be turned into hate; for when lawlessness in- 
creaseth they shall hate one another, and shall persecute 
and shall deliver up, and then shall appear the world- 
deceiver as the Son of God, and shall do signs and won- 
ders, and the earth shall be given into his hands, and 
he shall commit iniquities which have never yet been 
done since the beginning. ‘Then all created men shall 
come into the fire of trial, and many shall be made to 
stumble and shall perish. But they that endure in 
their faith shall be saved/from)this curse. And then 
shall appear the signs of the truth; first the sign of an 
opening in heaven, then the sign of the trumpet’s sound, - 
and thirdly, the resurrection of the dead; yet not of all, 
but asit hath been said: The Lord will come and all the 
saints with him. Then shall the world see the Lord 
coming upon the clouds of heaven. 


29 


USE OF: THE HOLY SCRIPTURES IN, THE 
eT EA CEI ING 7% 


OLD TESTAMENT. 


LINE. LINE 
*Deut..02 slo eee ae Ὁ ΕΣ ΘΙ, Πρ 86 f. 
*TODIt AUD cern cei. wore fp oi ΘΟ ΙΗ. RS ee ea al 315 f. 
*Sirach Bria. cree s ess es WOE, Mal EET ES Nok. cae 273 £. 
“Sivan daw mitccwy sie yee 91 Ὁ. 


NEW TESTAMENT. 


LINE. LINE. 
SMEG rOs hares a Ris ins ates 09. f. 1 0% Matt. 24 ΟΞ eee 298 f. 
ἘΝ ΟΣ ie re pat cies 284 f. | *Matt, 24.:24-81......... 313 f. 
ἘΔ ςτὸν BOT. πη ole eee: 200 1. 
WMatti) #30~48) τ τὺ ΠΟ ΕΣ SNAG ς Bone, ee 291 f. 
Μαῦρο Ξε inser ee 15.8.8. Matty 2B IOS, κε τε 140 ἢ 
ἈΝ πα ‘isi. casa ae ee 289 "Luke 6 27-99... 6. coi 10 
Mat Wel: Lae ae Ce ee 183/20) ἀπο: πο ae ge oe 215 f 
‘Watt Osea Needs oat Ald t.| *Lukel0* 4-2) ee eee 215f 
ἜΜ ιν we (216 5. } uke ΡΞ πο νυν 155 f. 
Mati πο ee ae 256 ἜΤΙ απ 289 f. 
“Matt D2 elite ace. lh ee Oe4f. | ἜΤΙ 2: Soe sens wee 291 f. 
"Matt Se Lom 1 εν -, 284 *Acts.A ΟΠ 92 f. 
‘Matt. aos beso see. ee 284 SH DHSO : OO ueeme, cee 108 f. 
ΜΑΙ 205 <TUChess, ΟΥ̓ ee eee 50 f. 
Matt. 22: 27-39.......... D tots Pet" tae eee 15f. 


1 This table is that of Bryennios, who adds: ‘‘ By this sign [*] are distinguished 
the passages which are not verbally cited in the ‘Teaching,’ and those to which the 
‘Teaching’ simply refers, with the words, ‘As the Lord commanded in the gospel.’” 
—EDs. 


80 


NOTES. 


THE TITLE. 


Another title is Διδαχὴ κυρίου dia τῶν δώδεκα ᾿Αποστόλων, 
‘“‘Teaching of the Lord through the Twelve Apostles.” Atha- 
nasius also calls it διδαχή. But Eusebius (Hist. 111. 25) uses the 
plural, διδαχαί. And Clement of Alexandria cites it as γραφή. 


COAL RE 


P. 2, 1. 8.—“do not to another”| The Golden Rule occurs 
both here and in the Apostolic Constitutions (vii. 2), in a nega- 
tive form, as in the teachings of Confucius. 

P. 2, 1. 11.— fast for them that persecute you”| The em- 
phasis put upon fasting, here and elsewhere in this document, 
is no sign of Montanism, since fasting was much emphasized in 
the early Church, and Montanism itself was, in this respect, only 
an exaggeration of common usage. 

Ῥ, 4, 1. 15.—‘“‘ye shall have no enemy ”] Suggested, appar- 
ently, by 1 Pet. iii. 18, ‘‘And who is he that will harm you, if 
ye be zealous of that which is good ?” 

P. 4,1. 22.—“for indeed thou canst ποῦ Because Chris- 
tians were forbidden to go to law before the unrighteous,” 1 Cor. 
vi. 1. 


81 


NOTES. 


Ῥ, 4, 1. 32.—‘‘ Let thine alms sweat in thy hands, until thou 
knowest to whom thou shouldst give”] A very graphic injunc- 
tion of carefulness in giving. 


CHAP. IT. 


P. 4, 1. 836.—‘‘thou shalt not corrupt boys”] The παιδεραστία 
of Classic writers, referred to by Paul in Rom. 1. 27. 

P. 6, 1. 88.—‘‘ by abortion”| Another heathen abomination. 

P. 6, 1. 42, 43.---διγλωσσία] This noun does not occur in 
Classic Greek, nor in the New Testament, but is found, to- 
..gether with the entire sentence in which it here stands, in the 
Epistle of Barnabas, Chap. xix. ‘There are many other corre- 
spondences between that epistle and the present document. 

P. 6, 1. 44.—‘‘filled with doing”] 1.6., works, deeds, as in 
Matt. xvi. 27. 


CHAP. ITT. 


P. 6, 1. 60.—‘‘nor a purifier”] Referring to some kind of su- 
perstitious lustration, perhaps by fire, as in Lev. xviii. 21; 
Deut. xviii. 10. 


CHAP. IV. 


P. 10, 1. 87.—‘‘for taking stretches out the hands, but for 
giving draws them in”| Graphic description of taking and 
giving. 

P. 10, 1. 88.—‘‘ by thy hands thou shalt give a ransom for 
thy sins”] Beneficence is better than sacrifice. See Proy. xvi. 
6, “ΒΥ mercy and truth iniquity is purged.” 

P. 10, 1. 98.—‘*thy slave”] As in the New Testament, so 
here, the relation of master and slave 15 not denounced, but 
regulated, 

32 


NOTES. 


CHAP. V. 


This catalogue of evil things pertaining to the ‘way of 
death,” reflects only too faithfully the dreadful corruption of 
the ancient civilization. 


CHAP. VI. 


P. 14, 1. 186.—‘* And concerning food, what thou art able, 
bear”] Nothing is unclean of itself, as Paul says in Rom. xiv. 
14, And again in 1 Tim. iv. 4, ‘For every creature of God is 
good, and nothing is to be rejected, if it be received with 
thanksgiving.” 


CHAP. VII. 


P. 14, 1. 189.—“*‘ Now, concerning baptism . . . in running 
water”’| ἐν ὕδατι ζῶντι, literally ‘‘in living water,” water in mo- 
tion, either as in a fountain, or as in a stream. A picture in the 
Catacomb of St. Callixtus, dating from about the year 200 a.p., 
represents a youth standing ankle-deep in water, and receiving 
baptism by the pouring of water upon his head. [See Northcote 
and Brownlow’s ‘‘ Roma Sotteranea,” Part IT., Plate XV.] The 
passage before us apparently recommends just this mode of per- 
forming the rite. If this should be impracticable, then fresh 
cold water might be similarly used [in a font]. If cold water 
could not be had, warm water would answer. If neither cold 
nor warm water in sufficient quantity (ankle-deep) could be 
had, then pouring only (the feet resting on the floor or ground) 
would suffice. This last is now the Syrian mode of baptism, 
and probably always has been. This fact, ascertained by the 
Crusaders (in the third Crusade, 1189-92), and made known 
through them in Europe, would help to account for Aquinas’s 
definition of baptism, so different from that of Peter Lombard 


33 


NOTES. 


about a century before. JLombard’s definition requires immer- 
sion ; Aquinas’s definition permits either immersion, pouring, 
or sprinkling. ‘The Seventh Book of the Apostolic Constitu- 
tions, at this point (Section xxil.), says nothing about the mode, 
but prescribes anointing with oil, both before and after bap- 
tism. Fasting is enjoined in both documents. 


CHAP. VIII. 


P. 14, 1. 154.---παρασκευήν] Cf. John xix. 14. 

Wednesday and Friday are named as days of fasting, instead 
of Monday and Thursday, as observed by “the hypocrites.” 
The Lord’s Prayer ends with the Doxology, as in Matthew, in- 
stead of its being omitted, as in Luke. 


CECA PS. chases 


These two chapters contain a brief eucharistic liturgy. 


CHAP ΧΙ. 


Apostles and Prophets are described as mere evangelists, or 
itinerant preachers, who were not expected to remain in one 
place more than a single day. 

P. 20, 1. 218.—ei μή has been inserted in the translation before 
ἡμέραν. So Harnack, Theol. Lit. Zeit., Feb. 9, 1884. Cf. p. 22, 
1, 246. 


CHAP. XIL. 


P. 22, 1. 244.—** Ye shall have understanding right and left ᾽ 
That is, a complete understanding. See 2 Cor. vi. 7. 


34 


NOTES. 


CHAP. XIII. 


Prophets and teachers are here spoken of as resident minis- 
ters, entitled to maintenance. They were to have the first- 
fruits of everything. Σιτία, in Classic Greek, is the plural of 
σιτίον, meaning ‘‘food” in general. Here, asin the Byzantine 
Greek, it is a singular noun, and means ‘‘ batch,” or ‘‘ baking 
of bread.” 


CHAP. XIV. 


The Lord’s Day is the day for worship and for the Eucharist. 
No mention is made of the seventh day of the week. 


CHAR a AV: 


P. 26, 1. 277.—‘* Now appoint for yourselves,” χειροτονήσατε 
οὖν ἑαυτοῖς] Xetpotovew occurs only twice in the New Testament 
(Acts xiv. 28; 2 Cor. viii. 19), and, in both places, means sim- 
ply to ‘‘appoint.” Josephus uses the word in the same sense 
in Ant. xiii. 2, 2, where Alexander Balas, the pretended son of 
Antiochus Epiphanes, “appoints” Jonathan High Priest. The 
same meaning appears in Ant. vii. 9,3; vii. 11, 1, In Ant. vi. 
5, 4, however, the noun χειροτονία is used of the coronation of 
Saul. In Josephus, accordingly, the prevailing sense of χειρο- 
τονέω is to ‘‘appoint.” This is the meaning of the word also in 
the Epistles of Ignatius (about 115 a.p.). See Philadelphians, 
Chap. 10; Smyrnzeans, Chap. 11; Polycarp, Chap. 7. 

But in the “ Apostolic Canons,” I. and ΤΙ., and in the ‘‘ Apos- 
tolic Constitutions,” viii. 4, 5, χειροτονέω means to “ ordain.” 
This represents the usage of the third century, as the New Tes- 
tament, Josephus, and Ignatius represent the usage of the first 
and second centuries. 


85 


NOTES. 


Now, it is noteworthy, that in the ‘‘ Apostolic Constitutions,” 
vii. 31 (the section corresponding to the passage before us), the 
word employed is not χειροτονέω, Which then meant ‘‘ ordain,” 
but προχειρίζομαι, a new usage having obtained. In this fif- 
teenth chapter of the ‘‘ Teaching,” ye:porovéw is employed, evi- 
dently, in its original sense of ‘‘appoint.” 'This indicates the 
high antiquity of the document, antedating by decades, if not 
by a whole century, the ‘‘ Apostolic Canons” and the ‘ Apos- 
tolic Constitutions.” 

As for the officers to be ‘‘ appointed,” only Bishops and Dea- 
cons are mentioned. By Bishops must, of course, be meant 
Presbyters, or Elders. There is no sign of a Bishop as distin- 
guished from a Presbyter; nor of a Ruling Elder as distin- 
guished from a Teaching Elder; and, apparently, there was in 
each congregation a plurality both of Bishops (or Elders) and — 
Deacons. 


CHAP. XVI. 


The document concludes with a vision of the Lord coming 
upon the clouds of heaven, and all the saints with him. The 
resurrection is of the dead, νεκρῶν, though ‘‘not of all the 
dead.” Nota word is said of any second resurrection. If there 
is to be a second resurrection, it is only implied. Of course, 
no interval is indicated. Premillennarianism, accordingly, is 
not directly, perhaps not even indirectly, taught. Following 
the lead of the New Testament, as in Matt. xxiv. 31, and in 
1 Thess. iv. 13-18, our document may, after all, only be em- 
phasizing the resurrection of the righteous. 


36 


ERRORS IN THE CODEX CORRECTED BY 


114, 


158, 


103. 
104. 
115. 
115. 
159. 
188. 
197%. 
2005. 
229. 
244. 
208, 


BRYENNIOS. 


CODEX. BRYENNIOS. 
Be re Peet Ee ane a oe Gass & wicva e's ke δή. 
ἐδ τατ ΉπππΠΠ Π ΠΡῸΣ ἱδρωσάτω. 
Ὀρ ΛΟέἔέἔοἔΨἔὍἕΨἝἕἔφΨσσοοοσν:-: ΕΠ τ πο τιν «ὀργίλος. 
εὐ λολατ ρα πΠέΠορέΕΠΠΠΕΠ πὶ Skea εἰδωλολατρείαν. 
εἰδωλολατρία.. .. ...- SOLAS patina te ie a εἰδωλολατρεία. 
ἜΤ ΤΥ ΣΥΝΗ͂Ν πον Ἐν Der 0 


FOr ae ΤΥ τ: ὑμῶν 
εἰδωλολατρίαι ...e ee ee ve Pe tne ape τ εἰδωλολατρεῖαι. 
ΟῚ ΟΣ Meare Pott τὶ a iye Falah tid ΤΡ Ὁ . φαρμακεῖαι. 
ὝΕΣ ΘΠ ΨΥ τος γενηθήτω. 
ὑμῶν AR FES ΜΕΥ ΣΕ ὙΠ ene ns etre ἡμῶν. 

σὺ OOL AME rr a Τππε εν τιν oes «ον. .σοὶ ἡ δόξα. 

ὡς ἀννὰ τῷ θεῷ...... Ati Cg ae OO ον ον .ὡσαννὰ τῷ υἱῷ. 
ΟΜ ΠΡρΠέΠέΕρρΕέΕρΕρΕΠΕΠΠΕ[ΕωμΨὋΕον,..,, ὕττοῶν ...δρίζων 

CLET AIAN Fo ote wo eon bens : . «ἕξετε 

δώσεις THY ἀπαρχήν......« «νον ἜΣ Nia ΟΕ δώσεις. 


1 Used only in poetry.—Bryenn. 
37 


᾿ γ᾽ 4 >_> ὟΝ 7 LAS id on A) | _. 
- a δι 
Siac yao ans ae ae etal ΝΙ 
2 ὁ AS. et Ὗ" 4 Al 
τ - a ν᾿ ro a rok! ijn UR OQE 
—— 5 t ’ 
. ἊΝ. ᾿ A : » eae 3 
. } a ce a 
. a. ὰ Z 
. ἵ ΤΙΣ oa ἢ - ae 
ql Ἢ Ν ᾿-- > ¥ 
τ᾿ ᾿ ᾿ “i r “a 
᾿ ὠ ν᾽ 
. J ν᾿ 
. 4 ζ 
Ἱ x 
{ Ἢ - 
5 “Bis ἢ 7 
- ᾿ i hs 
Ἷ ὰλ 
5 1] δ 
- {> A ac 
" 
= . 1 
ΙΑ uM 
΄ 
‘ 
᾿ δ 
᾿ bd 
τ μ᾿ 
τι 5 3 
Ey . νι 4 
4 ¥ ¥ ἡ τῇ 
Ἠ r 
‘ y me ἐς 
4] ine a 4 
t . he, 6 
[1 
; Se. 
» 
if ἢ 
; = 
> 


+ συ; ΄ 
= Ὁ ΄ » 
᾿ « 
ν 
a! 
Ὧν 
Σ ~ 
ae i” ow 
ϊ 
ἬΝ " 
; “ 
"“ ᾿ 
ΤῊ , rae 
Ἔς 
a 
‘ 
a! ἡ 
᾿ 
J Η y 
ΦΨῚ 
“ ‘ ain 
-3 vate . 
& " εν sees Ϊ 
oe. My a7 
᾿ τ ἀν νυν a2 
f 
ae, 
‘ ΜΕΥ ἐν x ΓΜ ΟὟ Ory 
Ὺ 8 
᾿ + : Pe γν. Lan γ᾽ 
i 
ν᾿ ὟΥ: ETN f t 
Cv. 33 mre | 
Ἷ 
ἢ ΣῊΝ avy ἘΞ ὃ 
= i Pan 
μ ἈΠ ἀρ δ τ δ a 
> \ 
‘ ΠΣ , τ ι- ἊΝ τ τ 1 > oy 
vies r , . : fos) ee rer eee ae by ie Ὁ . ’ 
Ὁ ‘ τ 
aS hy 
Se ee 4 he 
5 ine yee hae ee Lot Ee ARs, 
Z, ‘- rene | , ¥ 
Υ + ᾿ ‘ ae, δ] 
es 
iq e - Η Pe ἢ 41% ri ha ρον τὰ I we 
; ξ 703 το Κι ω 
πος : : Ley Biz : . af ees Paty Bs 
p Ε ᾿ : wre? ᾿ Ἢ Ἴ 
ν᾽ ὦ I ἐν" ᾿ wat! 7, oe reat a nd 
ἀν} Ν ἄγ: δ εν 7 ae ws (gas ἐν te igs ects i Sag 
Dy Wn crore; i: hae g 
ἔκ ς £ f ᾿ ik eS 


hse 

oo) Se Pr <a. 

Pe, oe ee 
ἄνθρω 


τ Φ 
ἵν ν 


ee 


x 


ade a 


Rs 
Ὶ 
᾽ 


\ τ ο 
Cw : ἊΝ : ᾿ 
lfc Ho Che Vaar tbo treet. | 
Opes: OL, 3, (42). 


1. 
Abhandlungen. 


1. 


liber δα8 ἀπ ἢ ς Unterridtsbud: ,,Die swei Wege 
oder die Sutjdheidung de8 Petrus. 


7 
Von Subregens Dr. Krawnbdy in Breslau. 


i 1. 
Die Vermuthung Hilgenfeld’s. “ 


ou der Hpistola fest. 39 nennt Wthanafins *) neben 
Dent in den FirchlicGhen Kanon aufgenommenen Schriften als 
Biicher, welche von den Vatern zum Vorlefen fiir die Kate- 
humenen beftimmt worden feten, die Weisheit Galomo’s, 
die Weisheit des Sivach, Cfther, Sudith, Tobias, die fo- 
genaunte Sehre der Apoftel und den Hirten. Ϊ 
Rufinus wiederholt in feinem Kommentar zum Wpo- 
fteljymbol diefe Angaben, jedoch mit swe Whrweichungen. 


1) Opp. ed. Bened. I, 2, 963. - 
24.* 


360 Krawubcty, 


Statt des Buches, Efther fithrt er die Biicher der Weac- 
cabier. an ἀπὸ ftatt Der fogenannten Lehre der i hes 
ein ‘Biiehlein mit? dem’ Titel’ Die arwei Wege oder die 
Ent}heidung de3 Petrus." ,,€3 giebt noch andere Biicher”, 
{auten jeine Worte, , welche von den Vorfahren nicht als 
fanonijde, jondern als firchlicje bezetcynet worden find, 
wie e8 die Weisheit Salomo’s ijt u. ἢ. w.; beim neuen 
Teftament aber das Biichlein, weldes den XNamen 
des Hirten oder Des Hermas fiuhrt, weldes 
»Die zwei Wege oder die ECntj{Hmeidung des Pe- 
trus” heift” ἢ. Wud) Hieronymus redet von der 
feptgenannten Schrift, zahlt fie jedod) gu den ungulajfigen, 


1) Sciendum tamen est, quod et alii libri sunt, qui non 
canonici, sed ecclesiastici a majoribus appellati sunt: ut est 
Sapientia Salomonis et alia Sapientia quae dicitur filii Syrach, 
qui liber apud Latinos hoc ipso generali vocabulo Ecclesiasti- 
cus appellatur, quo vocabulo non auctor libelli, sed scripturae 
qualitas cognominata est; ejusdem ordinis est libellus Tobiae 
et Judith et Maccabaeorum libri; in novo vero testamento 
libellus , qui dicitur Pastoris sive Hermatis, qui appellatur 
Duae viae vel Judicium Petri. Rufinus Aquil. Comment. 
in symb. apost. c. 38. ,Die Ausorudsweife,” bemertt Hilgen- 
feld zu diejem Lert (. fr. Cinl. in da8 N. T. εἰμ). 1875, S. 158), 
welder man durch Ginjhaltung eines et vor qui appellatur nach- 
subelfen verjucht hat’ (jo Credner, Gefchidjte des Meuteft. Kanon, 
herausgeg. Ὁ. Volkmar, Berl. 1860, Ὁ. 273), ,,ift etwas unflar.” 
Doch herrjcht fein Biweifel, dak zwet verjdiedene zum neuen Lefta- 
ment hingufommende Unterrichtsbiider gemeint πὸ. — Statt Ju- 
dicium Petri haben die alten Drucle mit dem Codex Sangerm. 
die Le8art: Judicium secundum Petrum; der Cod. Reg.: 
Judicium secundum Petri (Migne, Rufini Aquil. opp., 1849, 
col. 374). Lebtere Variante gabe nur einen Sinn, wenn eine erfte 
und zweite Entjdheidung des Petrus angenonmmen werden fonnte, 
wozu jeder Anhalt fehlt; fie beruht ohne Biweifel auf der Lesart: 
secundum Petrum, deren handjdyriftlide Beglaubigqung fie fteigert. 


Ueber das αὐ τ Untervidhtsbuch. 361 


apofryphen Unterridhtsbithern. Cr fdreibt namlich {ἴδεν 
den WApoftel Petrus: Οἷς Bitcher, von weldhen das 
eine als feine Wften itberjchrieben ijt, das andere αἵδ᾽ fein 
Spyangelium, das dritte αἵδ᾽ jeine Predigt, das vierte als 
jeine Offenbarung, das fiinfte alg jetne Entjcheidung, 
werden unter Die apofryphen Schriften verwiejen” 1). 8 
ergiebt fich Hieraus, dab gegen Ende de3 vierten Gahrhun- 
Dert3 5) der Gebrauch und das Anjehen dev ,,Brwei Wege 
oder der Entfheidung deS Petrus" feineSwegs allgemein 
war, was iibrigen3 auch vom Hirten de3 Hermas gilt, den 
Hieronymus ebenfalls gelegentlich einmal furzweg als 
apofryph bezeichnet *). Smmerhin erjcheint jedoch eine 
Schrift, welche einft dem Hirten tm firchlicjen Unterricdhte 
aur Seite geftellt wurde, einiger Veachtung werth und 
fadet um fo mehr bierzu ein, al8 fie neuerdings mehrfad 
fliv wieder gefunden angejehen wird. 

wim Sahre 1866 theilte namlichh Woolf Hilgen- 
feld in jeinem Novum Testamentum extra canonem 
receptum, fase. [V., p. 95—105 einen gviechijcdhen Lert 
mit, welchen er unter Begugnahme auf die obigen Angaben 
des Rufinus und de$ Hieronymus mit »Duae viae vel 
judicium Petri« itberjdrieb. Wor ifm Hatten denjelben 


1) De viris illustr. ὁ. 1. (Opp. ed. Vallars. Il, 227). Die 
Worte: libri autem, e quibus unus Actorum ejus inscribitur, 
alius Evangelii, ... quintus Judicii, — Jaffen unentjdieden, 
ob bet Judicium ebenjo wie bei Evangelium (j. Hilgenfeld, 
Noy. Test. extra can. IV, 39 ss.) secundum Petrum oder 
wie bet Acta nur Petri hingugudenfen ἢ ©. die vorige Anim. 

2) Die UAbfafjungszeit dev Schrift De viris illustr. tvifft in 
die neungziger Sabre de8 vierten Jahrh. Wlzo0g, Handb. dev Patro- 
fogie, 3. Wufl., Frb. 1876, Ὁ. 388. 

3) Comm. in Abacuc I, 1, 14 (Opp. VI, 604 s.), Hilgenf. 
Eve, iil p. XIV. 


862 Krawubely, 


TertF. Wilh. Bickell ἡ, WB. de Lagarde?) und 
%. B. Pitra *) verdffentlidjt, jedoch ohne den von H il- 
genfeld gewablten Litel, da die Wiener Handfdhrift, 
auf weldjer die Veriffentlidimgen berufen, nv die UWber- 
jhrift: , Die Verordnungen δεν ὦ Clemens und 
firdliche Ranonen der heiligen Wpojtel” bie- 
tet 4). Auch war bereits von Bice ll eine grofe Uberein- 
jtimmung diejer , Verorduungen” oder, um mit demfjelben 


1) Gejchichte de RKirchenredhts, Gieben 1843, I, 107—132. 

2) Reliquiae juris ecclesiastici antiquissimae, graece ed, 
Lips. 1856, p. 74—79. 

3) Juris ecclesiastici Graecorum historia et monumenta. 
Tom. I. Romae 1864, p. 77—86. 

4) At διαταγαὶ αἱ διὰ Κλήμεντος χαὶ χανόνες ἐχχλησιαστι- 
χοὶ τῶν ἁγίων ἀποστόλων. Bicell, a. a. Ὁ. S. 88 Anm., δὲς 
merit hierzu Golgendes: ,,Der griechifche Titel, twelchen diejes Stiid 
in der Wiener Handjchrift fiibrt: at διατ. u. f. w. beruht vielleicht 
auf einem BVerjehen deS UAbjchreibers und gehirt wohl eigentlich 
au den (in der Handfchrift ebenfalls auszugsweife aufgenommenen) 
apofiolijdhen Conjtitutionen, indent bon Clemens in unjerem Stiice 
feine Rede ift. Der athiopijde Tert hat denn auch wirklich einen 
anderen und zivar ganz pafjenden Vitel: ,Diejes find die Canones 
der Wpoftel, welde fie zur Oronung der Ghriftlidhen Kirche 
feftaefebt haben”, und hiernacd) habe ich den Vitel: apoftolijdhe 
Kirdhenordnung (ordinatio ecclesiastica apostolorum) ftir 
Diejes Hfeudoapoftolifdhe Stiteé gewahlt.” — Cd. BKHmer (Deutjche 
᾿ς βου fie ἀν. Wiffenfeh. wu. chviftl Leben. Gabrg. 1857, 
©. 168) findet dieje Gezeichnung nicht treffend. Aber in Crmange- 
(ung einer beffeven (Vitra iiberfepretbt 1, c. p. 75 das Ganze mit: 
Sanctorum apostolorum sententiae; Lagarde fithrt das ΘΕ 
nur αἴ caput undecimum jfeiner Sammlung an; eine Vatica- 
nifde Dandjdrift, twelde Pitra nod) verglich, bietet, da fie 
nidjt den vollftandigen Lert, fondern einen Wuszug enthalt, den 
Ritel: ᾿Επιτομὴ ὅρων τῶν ἁγίων ἀποστόλων χαϑολικῆς παρα- 
δόσεως) werden wir im Folgenden die Bictell’ fhe Bezeichnung 
beibehalten. 


Ucber dad alttiveilide Untervidtabuc). 363 


YWutor zu reden*), diejer ,apoftolijdhen Kivdhenordnung" 
mit Der zweiten, Eleineren Halfte de3 Barnabasbriefes, weldhe 
Die zwei Wege de3 Lites und der Finfternif 
bejchreibt 5), jowie mit dem erften Zheile des fiebenten 
Buches der apoftolijchen Conftitutionen, wo der Weg 
dDeS Lebens und der δε Todes gejdhildert wird’), 
bemerft werden *). Lagarde hatte augkerdem die Entdeck- 
ung gemacht, dab bereits Clemens von Wlerandrien 
an einer Stelle jeiner Stromata®) die fraglice Rirdjen- 
ordiung 3u fennen und zwar als , Schrift" angufiihren 
{cheint, δὰ das betreffende Citat weder im Barnabasbriefe 
nod) in den apoftolijden Conftitutionen vorfomimt nod 
jonft bisher nachweisbar war °). Bitra endlich, jo hebt 
wenigitens Hilgenfeld’) hervor, um angudeuten, wie 
nahe jon vor ihm die erft durch ihn audsgeiprocjene 
Vermuthung lag, wies auch bereits auf die hervorragende 
Rolle Hin, welche dem Petrus in dev Kirdhenordnung 


1) Ὁ. die vorige Win. 

2) C. 18—20. 

3) C. 1-18. 

4) Bicell vermutet a. a. Ὁ. ©. 91, dab der RKirchenordnung 
weder der Barnabasbrief noch die apoft. Conftit. unmittelbar zu 
Grunde liegen, jondern eine dritte mit dem Griefe de3 Barnabas 
sujanunenhangende Schrift, welche fowobhl dem Verfafjer dev Kirchen- 
Drdnung alS dem des 7. Buches der apojt. Conjtit. befannt ge- 
wefern fei. Der ziweite Theil diefer Vernruthung wird fic) im Fol- 
genden al richtig ergeben. Gegen den erften Theil wird fic) zeigen 
Laffer, dak dev Verfajjer dev Kirchenordnung neben der vermutheten 
Ddvitten Schrift zwar nicht die apoft. Conftit., aber dod) den Barna- 
basbrief unmittelbar benugt hat. 

5) I, c. 20, p. 373 ed. Potter. 

OLE. De ebay ite TONG. 

PELETO. pay 90. 


ν᾽ 


‘ 


364 ται, 


beigelegt τοἱτῦ 1). Hiernach trug Hilgenfeld fein Be- 
Denfen, in Dem vorliegendDen Lerte Das von Rufinus jowwie 
yon Hieronymus erwahnte, aber bisher vermifte altfird)- 
fiche Untervichisbuch ,Die zwet Wege oder die Cnt- 
jdeidung des Petrus” 3u erblicen und als von 
ihm wiedergefunden Hinguftellen *). Geine Vermuthung 
hat alsbald Buftimmung gefunden — 3. B. fdjon in der 
1869 erjchienenen Grflarung deS Barnabasbriefes von 
αὶ, G. Miller 5), desgletchen im den Wusgaben der 
apoftolifchen Biter von Gebhardt — Harnad — 
Bahn (1875) *) und von Fr. X Bunk (1878) *) — 
und Diirjte, Da Hilgenfeld jelbjt noch in jeiner 1875 
verbffentlichten Cinleitung in das Neue Leftament feines 
Widerjpruches gedentt °), bis jebt unbeftritten geblieben fern. 

Bur befjeren Klarjtellung des Gegenftandes erjcheint 
ἐδ nun angemeffen, vor allem die Griinde, auf welche 
Hilgenfeld jeine Meinung ftiwt, πάθεν fennen 211 Ler- 
nen. Jn Ddtejer Hinficht werden von ihm drei Umftande 
geltend gemacht: 1. die new Herausgegebene Schrift fet jon 
dem Clemens von WAlerandrien befannt gewejen; 2. diefelbe 
ftehe in naber Beziehung zum ftebenten Buche der apo- 
ftolijden Conftitutionen, das fehr viele Sage aus iby 


1) erp. 70. 

2) Nov. Test. extr. can., IV, p. 94. 5, u. §. fr. Cinl. in 
nas KN. T. S. 158. 

3) ©. 345. 

4) Patr. Apost. opp. edd. Osc. de Gebhardt, Ad. Harnack, 
Theod. Zahn, fase. I, Lips. 1875, p. XXIII. 

5) Opp. Patr. Apost. ed. Fr. X. Funk, Tub. 1878, p. I. 

6) ©. S. 158. Sn einer Anzahl theologijder Beitfchriften habe 
id) nach einer Befpredung der Hilgenfeld’jdhen »Duae viae« 
vergebens σοι, 


Ueber δα ἀπε τῶ ὥς Untervichtsbud. 365 


enthalte, und jet wegen diejer Verwandt}dhaft bet Rufinus 
an die Stelle der von WAthanafinus angefithrten ,, Lehre 
Der WApoftel” getreten; 3. auch finde fich aus dem Wlter- 
thume fein Buch, mit welchem alles, was jener von δ 11: 
finus itberlieferte Litel befagte, befjer itbereinftimime: der 
sweite Sheil des Barnabasbriefes, welchen der alte latei- 
nije Uberjeher weglieR, fei fiir fich herausgegeben und 
mit Dem Vitel: ,, Die swei Wege" bhezeichnet worden, durch 
WApoftelfpritche vermehrt Habe er auch den Litel: ,,Die 
Ent}dheidung des Petrus" erhalten, die erjte Halfte aber 
jet in das fiebente Buch der apoftolijden Conftitutionen 
iibergegangen ᾽). 

Betrachten wir dieje Angaben im Cingelnen, jo 
fand, wie erwdhnt, bereits Lagarde allerdings bet 
Clemen$ von Wlerandrien ein Citat, welches fic) mit 
Der in Hede ftehenden Schrift bevithrt. ,,Diefer”, Heibt 
e3 Stromata I, c. 20, οἶδέ von der Gdhrift als Dieb 
bezcichnet worden; weniglten3 fagt fie: ,Gohn, werde 
nit ein Litgner, denn die Viige fithrt gum Diebftahl” 3). ° 


1) Hune esse librum, quem Rufinus »Duae viae vel judi- 
cium Petrix appellavit, nemo vidit. eundem autem librum 
fuisse nullus dubito. hae »Constitutiones et Canones aposto- 
lorum« breviores, quamvis hic illic postea mutatae, jam Cle- 
menti Alexandrino innotuerunt. ex iisdem permulta in Con- 
stitutionum apostolicarum |. VII transierunt. cognatum igitur 
librum Rufinus pro Doctrina apostolorum ab Athanasio memo- 
rata substituit. neque ullum alium librum antiquum invenies, 
cui omnia quae ille titulus praedicavit melius conveniant. 
Barnabae epistolae pars altera (c. 18—21), quam vetus inter- 
pres latinus non vertit, seorsim edita “Odol δύο, apostolorum 
sententiis aucta etiam Πέτρου xoiuc appellata est, prior autem 
pars in Constitt. app. 1. VII transscripta est. L. ο. IV, p. 95. 

2) Οὗτος χλέπτης ὑπὸ τῆς γραφῆς εἰρηται. φησὶ γοῦν - Υἱέ, 


366 Krawubety, 


wit der Kirchenordiung aber fejen wir:  ,, Mathanael 
jprach: Rind, werde nicht ein Viiqner, indem die Liige 
sum Diebftabl fiihrt” ἢ. Die Ubereinftimmung ift alfo 
Τα]! eine wortlice. Yur bleibt anderjeits auch die Ptdg- 
lichfeit, Dak der Berfaffer der Kirchenordnung und Clemens 
von Wlerandrien unabhingig von einander aus ein und 
Derjelben adlteren Schrift gefchopft haben, welche wir 
nicht mehr befiben *). 

Sodann werden wir auf die Verwandt}chaft der neu 
edierten Schrift mit Dem fiebenter Suche der apoftolijchen 
Conftitutionen Hingewiefen und dahin berichtet, dak Ru- 
finus wegen diefer Verwandtichajt ftatt der von Wthanafius 


μὴ γίνου ψεύστης ὅδηγεῖ γάρ τὸ ψεῦδος πρὸς τὴν χλοπήν. 
L. c. p. 373 ed. Potter. 

1) Ναϑαναὴλ sine Téxvov, μὴ γίνου ψεύστης, ἐπειδὴ ὁδηγεῖ 
τὸ ψεῦσμα ἐπὶ τὴν χλοπήν. Hilgenf. IV, p. 98, 24, 25. Die 
Verjchiedenheit ecinzelner Wusdriice fallt hier wegen der Freiheit, 
mit welder Clemens von WAlerandrien Sehriftttellen angufiihren 
pflegt, nicht in’8 Gewicht ©. bhieriiber J. ὁ. Friedlieb, Schrift, 
Tradition und Εἰ, Sdriftauslegung. Breslau 1854, ©. 206. 

2) Auferdem fudt Hilgenfeld die Bekanntichaft des WAle- 
randviners mit der Kirdenordnung noc) dadurd) zu erbarten, dah 
in Legtever unter den Whofteln neben Petrus eit Kephas genannt 
werde und aud) Clemens von Wlerandrien einen Kephas von Petrus 
unterjdieden habe. Wenigitens werde von Euseb. H. EH. I, 12, 2 
mitgetheilt, dag Clemens von Wlerandrien im 5. Buche der Hypoty- 
pofen den iim Galaterbriefe 2, 11 ertwwahnten Kephas (sic), tweldem 
Paulus zu UAnttochien entgegentrat, alS einen von den 70 Fiingern 
bezeichne, dev sufallig mit dent Aoftel Petrus gleidnamig getwejen fet. 
L. ὁ. p. 95 u. 105. Wie man fieht, (apt fich jedoch auch hieraus eine 
Befannt}daft des Clemens von 2lexandrien mit der Kirchenoronung 
nicht jicher entnehmen, da die lebtere den Kephas in dev Bahl der 
AWpoftel anfiihrt, ganz abgefehen davon, dak jie ihm Worte im den 
iund legt wie: Du jollft nicht Spaltungen verurfachen” wu. 1. τυ, 
welche die Besziehung auf Gal. 2,11 ff. wenig wabhricheinlich machen. 
6. 1. c. p. 100, 6—8. 


Ueber das αἰτῶ. Untervictsbudh. 367 


angefiihrten fogenannten Lehre der Wpoftel die in Rede 
ftehende Schrift erwabnt habe. Der Gedanke Hil geu- 
feld’3 ift ohne Bweifel der, dak Rufinus unter dem 
Vitel: οἷο zwei Wege oder die Entidhetoung des Petrus” 
ein abhnliches Werf genannt haben ditrjte, wie ἐδ Die 
fogenannte Apoftellehre bei Wthanafins war, und deshalb 
Die Kirchenorduung wohl gemeint haben fonne, da dteje 
in Der That gleich dem fiebenten Buche der apoftolijchen 
Conftitutionen eine Apoftellehre enthalte. Wher eine blofe 
Vermuthung und Miglichfeit fommen wir aljo arch Hier 
nicht Hinaus. 

Bulegt macht Hilgenfeld geltend, dak fich feine 
andere Schrift de$ Wlterthums finde, mit weldher alles, 
was der von Mufinus itberlieferte Litel bejagte, befjer 
iibereinfttmme. Der erfte Theil der Schrift mit fetner 
dem Barnabasbriefe entnommenen Schilderung der gwei 
Wege erflave den Vitel: ,,Die gwet Wege", der srweite 
Theil aber, in welchem ein Ausjpruch des Petrus den 
Anfang und den Schlup bilde, Habe nicht minder pafjend 
»die Ent}dheidung de3 Petrus” iiberjchrieben werden 
finnen *). — Sndek Hiergegen tft doch gu evinnern, dai 
Der giweite Theil weder zur alleinigen Crwahuung δὲ 
Petrus im Litel nod) zur Wahl des Wortes ,,Cnticher- 
Dung, Judicium" geniigenden W2nlak giebt und felbft, 
wenn dies der all ware, der Gejammttitel eher: ,,Dte 
swet Wege und die Cnticheioung de Petrus" als: 
, die gwet Wege oder die CEnticheidung de8 Petrus” 


1) Petri est sententia prima et ultima, bemerft Dilgen- 
feld 1. ὁ. p. 106 sum 3iveiten Theile, quam ob rem huic alteri 
parti titulus »Petri judicium« non minus convenit quam priori 
titulus »Duae viae«. 


368 Krawubdy, 


fauten miipte. Denn zwar hat Petrus im sweiten Theile 
das Cingangs- und Schlupwort jowie den Θρυμ iiber 
Die που]: in Betracht fommende Bijchofswabhl. Cs er- 
jeint injofern nicht unvichtig, mit Bitra?) von einem 
Hervorragenden Wntheile diejes Wpojtels an der Berhand- 
{ung 211 reden. Allein fitr die Verhandlung jelbjt, in 
welder nach Petrus noch Sohannes, Gafobus, Mtatthaus, 
RKephas, Wndreas und WBhilippus das Wort ergrerfer, 
unt bezitglich der Briefter, der Borlejer, der Diafonen, 
der Wittwen und der Laien das Geeiqnete anzuorduen, 
hatte wohl die in der Wiener Handfchrift vorfommende 
Bezeichnung: καἰ. Ranonen der Heiligen Upoftel,“ 
nicht aber der Vitel: , Die Cntfchetdung des Petrus” 
gewablt werden finnen. Dag aber die von Rufinus er- 
wihnte Schrift ,, Die swet Wege oder die Entjheidung 
DeS Petrus" hieb, deutet doc) wohl auf eine Arbeit hin, 
welde allenfalls infofern aus zwei Theilen beftand, als 
fie wirflich zwet Wege nach einander jchilderte (— wo- 
gegen Die Rirchenordnung in ihrem erften Dheile zwar 
anfangs von zwet Wegen redet, Dann aber mur den 
Lebensweg δε τοῖοι und eine Darftellung des Todes- 
wegeS weder im erften noch im gweiten Theile bringt —) 
und welche Hierbet jo verfubr, δαβ Petrus hinfichtlich 
Der giwet Wege das ent}dheidende Urtheil Ἰρτα. — Weag 
aljo immerhin in unferem gejammten patrifttjdhen Lite- 
raturbeftande feine Schrift fich finden, welche den von 
Rufinus bezeugten Litel mit groiperem Rechte erhalten 
finnte, al die vorlieqende Rirdhenorduung, jo οὐ] εἰπὲ 
Doc) auch das Recht der lebteren auf jenen Litel wenig 


"ΤΡ ΤΟ: 


Ueber das altfirchliche Unterridtsbuch. 369 


einleuchtend, zumal die Woglichfeit, Dab wir das fragliche 
Unterrichtsbuch iiberhaupt nicht mehr befigen, fondern 
nur noch zwei Uberarbeitungen Ddeffelben, eine fitrzere 
und unvollftdndige in der erften Halfte Der Kirdenordnug 
und eine Ldngere im erften Theile des fiebenten Buches 
der apoftol. Conjtit., ourchaus nicht jo fern liegt. 

Doch wird ἐδ an der Beit fein, wm iiber den ane 
geregten Gegenftand ein beftimmteres Urtheil 3u gewinnen, 
Die Schilderungen dev gwet Wege jowohl im Barnabas- 
briefe alS auch in der RKirchenordnung und im fiebenten 
Buche der apoftol. Conjtit. 6107} 3u betrachten. 


=x 


2. | 
Die Darfiellung dev zwei Wege im Sarnabasbriefe. 


Der Barnabasbrief beginnt jeinen sweiten oder paz 
rinetijdjen Theil, defjen Cchtheit fet der Vertheidiquig 
Hefele’s+) faft allgemein anerfannt wird 3), mit den 
Worten: ,,Gehen wir aber auch 21: einer anderen (geiftigen) 
Crfenntnif und Lehre iiber. C8 find swei Wege — dev 
Vehre und der Meachtvollfommenheit —, der des Lichtes 
und Der der ginfterniZ. Wber der Unterjdhied gwifcen 
Den gwet Wegen ift grok. Denn dem einen find Licht- 
engel Gottes vorgefebt, Dem anderen Engel de Satans: 
‘und jener {ΠῚ ein Herr von Cwigfeit 34 Cwigfeit, diefer 

1) ©. J. Hefele, Das Sendfehreiben de$ Apoftels Barnabas, 
Tih. 1840, Ὁ. 196 ff. Tiib. Quartalfdr. 1839, ©. 60 ff. 


2) Ad. Hilgenfeld, Barnabae epistula, ed. 2., Lips. 1877, 
p. XXX 5. Fr. X. Funk, Opp. Patrum apost. p. Χ 5. 


370 Krawuyedy, 


aber εἶπ Herrjder der jebigen Zeitfrift der Ungefeblichteit. “ 

Wuf diefe Cinleitung, weldje das achtzehnte Kapitel 
be3 Vriefes ausmacdht, folgt im neungehnten die Schil- 
Deruitg Des Lichtweges. ,, Der Weg de8 Lichte3 num ift 
Diejer: wenn Semand willenS, des Weges an wandeln 
sum Cnodziele Hin, jet ev eifrig mit jeinen Werfen. C3 
ijt nun die Crfenninig, die uns verliehen worden, dab 
wir in iby wandeln, von folgender Wrt. — Du follft 
lieben den, der dich gemacht, fiirchten dem, Der dich gebildet, 
verherrliden den, der dich erldft hat vom ode; follft 
einfach fein im Herzen und reich) im Geifte; jollft nicht 
anhdngen Ddenjenigen, die auf dem LodeSwege wandeln ; 
jollft Πα ἐπ alles, was nicht woblgefallig ift vor Gott; 
jollft hajjen alle Heuchelet; nicht migeft du verlaffen die 
Gebote deS Herrn. — Du follft dich nicht jelbft erhshen, 
jondern DdDemithiq fein in allen Beziehungen, nicht dir 
jelbft (δῆτε beilegen; ou jollft nicht annehmen einen 
jehlimmen Rath gegen deinen Yeichften, nicht geftatten 
Deiner Seele BVerwegenheit. — Du jollft nicht huren, 
nicht ehebrechen, nicht Rnaben jchanden; nicht mige das 
Wort Gottes von dir ausgehen in der Unreinheit gewiffer 
Leute; du follft nicht perjinlice Riickhjidht nehmen beim 
Burechtweijen wegen eines του δ. du jollft janft 
jein, jollft rubig fein, jollft zittern Hinfichtlich der Worte, 
Die Du gehirt Haft; ow follft nicht BoHjes nadhtragen δεῖς 
nem Bruder. — Du follft nicht sweifeln, ob e8 fein 
wird oder nicht; nicht mogeft du den Yamen des Herrn 
vergeblich fithren; du follft lieben deinen δὲ ει mehr 
alS deine Geele; du jollft nicht tédien ein Rind durch 
WAbtreibung noch auch hinwieder nach der Geburt e3 um- 
bringen; nidjt migeft du deine Hand auviictziehen von 


Ueber das alifirchlidje Untervichtsbud). 911 


Deinem Sohne oder von detner Lochter, jondern von 
Sugend auf jolljt du fie lehren die Furcht de3 Herrn. — 
Night moigeft ou begierig werden nach den Giitern deines 
Niachften, nicht werde ein habjitchtiger Weenjch ; auch follft 
Du nicht mit deiner Geele anhangen den Hochgeftellten, 
fonder mit den Demiithigen und Geredhten umgehen; die 
Dich treffenden Schicungen folljt du fiir gut binnehinen, 
wifjend, dak ohne Gott nichts gejchieht. — Du follft 
nicht Doppelfinnig und nicht doppelsiingig jeiu, Denn eine 
Shlinge des Todes {ΠῚ die Doppelsiingigheit; du jollft 
Dic) unterwerfen den Gebietern αἵδ᾽ einem Hinweis auf 
Gott mit Cingezogenheit und Burdht; nicht mogeft on 
Deinem Rnechte oder der Weagd, die ἀπῇ denjelben Gott 
hoffen, gebieten mit Bitterfeit, dab fie nicht ablajjen 
Gott 3u fitrchten, der iiber beiden ift, da er nicht ge- 
fommen, nach perjinlicber Ritckficht zu berufen, jondern 
au denen, welche Dev Geift vorbereitet Hat. — Du follft 
Gemeinjaft. gewahren in allen Dingen deinem YXach{ten 
und nichts Dein eigen nennen, Denn wenn ihr im Unver- 
ginglichen Genoffen feid, um wie viel mehr in den ver- 
gangliden Dingen; ou follft nicht vorlaut fein, denn 
der Mund ijt eine Gehlinge deS Todes; fo jehr du 
fannjt, um deiner Geele willen jollft du dich rein halten. 
— Sei nicht ein Meenjch, dev feine Hand ausftreckt zum 
Empfangen, zum Geben aber fie etngieht; ou follft lieben 
wie Deinen MWAugapfel jeden, welder 3u dir des Herrn 
Wort redet. — Du jollft gedenfen de Gerichtstages bei 
Nacht und bet Lage und anfjuchen an jeglicdem Lage 
Die Gegenwart der Heiligen, indem du entweder ver- 
mittelft des Wortes dich bemiihft und Hinwandelft zum 
Crmahnen und finneft auf die Seelenrettung durch das 


379 Krawubely, 


Wort, oder vermittelft deiner Hande follft du hinarbeiten 
auf ein Lofegeld fiir deine Siinden. — Du jollft dich 
nicht befinnen gum Geben und jollft nicht murren, wenn 
Du giebjt, erfennen aber wirjt du, wer der gute Lohn- 
erftatter ift; du jollft bewahren, was du empjangen halt, 
ohne Hinjzufiiguug und ohne Hinwegnahme; immerdar 
jollft du Hajjen den Bojen; du follft gerecht vidten. — 
Du jollft nicht eine Spaltung verurjachen, jondern jollft 
friedfertig fein, indDem Du Die Strettenden vereinigft; du 
jollft das Bekenninig ablegen iiber deine Gitnden; du 
jollft nicht nahen zum Gebet mit bojem Bewuftfein. 
Dieles ift der Weg des Lichtes.” 

Cin Glan und geordneter Gedanfengang ditrfte in 
Diefer Schilderung unmiglic) nachguweijen fein. «ἡ. G. 
Miller +) theilt das neungzehnte Rapitel in zwolf durch 
Die obigen Strice angedeutete Baragraphen, gu welden 
er folgende Gubaltsangaben macht: ,,1. Der Weg des 
Vichtes befteht in Wandel und Werfen. 2, Das erfjte 
und oberfte Gebot {ΠῚ das der Liebe 3 Gott, welche feine 
Gemeinfchaft mit dem Wege δε Lode duldet. 3. Crhebe 
dich nicht iiber deinen Nachften. 4. Ube Renjehheit, Un- 
parteilichfeit, Mtilde. 5. Bweifle nicht beim Gebet, mif- 
brauche nicht den Namen Gotte3, Liebe den Machften, ver- 
jiindige Dich namentlich nicht an deinen Kindern. 6. Strebe 
nicht nach Gold und Hoher Befannt}haft. Crtrage, was 
Dir Gott Ἰώ. 7. Set nicht doppelfinnig. Verbhalten 
gegen Obere und IMiedere. 8. Set gegen den Nachften 
mildihatig und nicht vorlaut. 9. Sei freigebig. Befonders 
liebe die Verkiindiger des Wortes Gottes. 10. Halte dich 


tit 1) Grklarung de$ Barnabasbriefes. Cin Anhang zu De Wette’s 
exeg. Handb. zum δὲ, TV. Leipz. 1869, ©. 352 ff. 


Ueber das αἰνῶς Unterridtsbuch. 373 


an Die Heiligen (Die Gemeinde), und εἰ thatig fitr ihr 
Heil. 11. Gieb gern. Bleibe auf dem rechten Wege der 
Gebote Seju. 12. Crhalte den Frieden in der Gemeinde; 
geftehe Gott deine Gitnden; aber θείς nicht in Siinden.“ — 
Cin fablicer του ὦν der Crmahnungen ift jedoch bier- 
aus nicht 21: entnehmen. 

Chenjo wenig verhilft zu griperer Klarheit eine Ver- 
gleihung mit dem fiirzeren gwanzgigften RKapitel, weldhes 
den Weg der Hinfternik oder de3 , Schwarzen“ 1) bejdreibt. 
Der Weg de Schwarzen aber“, Heibt e8 Hier, ,,ift ver- 
fehrt und voll des Hludes. Denn e8 ijt ein Weg ewigen 
Lode3 in Verbindung mit Strafe, woranf fich befindet, 
was ihre Seelen verdirbt: Gdgendienlt, τονε θεῖς, Hoch- 
muth der Niacht, Heuchelet, Ooppelherszigfeit, Chebruch, 
Mord, Raub, Uberhebung, Ubertretung, Betrug, Bosheit, 
Wnmapung, Giftmifderei, Bauberet, Habjucht, Yeangel an 
Gottesfurcht; BWerfolger der Guten, Wahrheit haffend, 
Liigen Tiebend, von einem Lohne der Gerechtigkeit nichts 
wiffend, nicht anhangend dem Guten, nicht dem gerechten (δες 
richte, nicht achtend einer Wittwe oder Waije, wacdhjam nicht 
aur Gottesfurcht, jondern zum Sdlimmen, von denen weitab 
und fern ift Sanftmuth und Geduld, liebend das Faljcdhe, 
jagend nach Belohnung, nicht bemitleidend den YWrmen, 
nicht fich anftrengend wegen eines jhwer Belafteten, behend 
in Der Verldiumdung, nicht erfennend den, der fie gemacht, 
Mirder von Kindern, Berftdrer des Gebildes Gottes, fich 
abwendend vom Bediirftigen, unterdriicend den Bedrang- 
ten, Beijtinde der Reichen, ungerechte Richter der Armen, 
in Wem fiindhajt.” — 


1) Miller, a a. Ὁ. S. 370. 
Theol OQuartalfdhrift. 1882. Heft LL. | 95 


814 Krawupty, 


Augenfheinlid) war ἐδ dem Berfafjer nicht darum 
au thun, bet fener Wufzahlung eine wobhliiberlegte Ord- 
nung eingubalten. Hodchftens lapt fich denfen, dag dem- 
jelben, αἵδ᾽ ev den Lichtweg gu bejchreiben verjuchte, eine 
Cintheilung vorjdwebte, welche fich ihm bet Getrachtung 
Der mofaifdhen Speijegejebe, die er αἱ BVorbild der hri- 
ftenpflidjten darftellt, {chon im evften Theile des Briefes 
abe gelegt hatte. Gn dev mofatiden BVorjdhrift, weder 
vom Schweine noch vom Woler noch vom Habit nod 
vom Raben noch vom unbejchuppten Fijche zu effen, jeter 
ndmlich, jo erflart Rapitel X. unjeres Briefe, dret 
geiftig aufyufafjende Sehrjige aufgeftellt, die gleicjam 
fauten: Du follft dich micht gu jolchen Leuten gejellen, 
welche den Schweinen gleichen, die nur aus Hunger faut 
werden, wenn fie aber vollauf haben, ifres Herrn ver- 
gefjen; auch nicht Lenten abnlich werden, die gleich den 
Raubvigeln von fremdem Gut [ὦ nahren, und auch nicht 
jolchen, die gleich den jhuppenlojen Bewohnern der WMeeez 
reStiefe, welche niemals emportaudjen, immerdar gottlo3 
und bereits dem Codesurtheile verfallen find. Mtodglicher 
Weije dachte der Verfaffer hieran, als er bet der Schil- 
Derung des Lichtwege3 die Worte: ,, Du follft lieben den, 
Der Dich gemacht Hat u. 7. w.“ voranjtellte, dann Die 
mannigjade Warnung vor der Selbjterhihung und verz 
wegenen Schadigung des YXiachften folgen lie und gulebt 
mit den Worten: , Ou jolt Lieben wie deinen Wugapfel 
jeden, welcher gu div de3 Herrn Wort redet τι. ἢ. w." gu 
firchlider Gefinnung und werfthatigem Geeleneifer ev- 
mahnte. Dieje Medglichfeit Viegt um jo naher, αἵ in 
Kapitel X. bet der Bejprechung der drei Chierflafjen 
nod) folgende Stelle vorfommt. οἷς (geiftige) Crfennte 


Ueber das altfird lide Untervidtsbuch. 375 


nif DdDerfelben drei Lehrjagke erfaBt aber David und jagt 
auf ahnlice Weije: ,Glitckelig der Meann, welcher nicht 
wandelte nach dem Rathe der Gottlojen’, gleichwie auch 
Die Bijdhe in Binjtern zur Liefe wandeln, απὸ auf dem 
Wege der Sitnder nicht ftand’, gleichwie die zum Scheine 
Gottesfiir Htigen wie die Schiweine fiindigen, ,und auf dem 
Giuhle dev Peftilenz nicht fap’, gleichwie die Bogel, die 
auf Raub lauern’. Denn ἐδ wird aus dieler Hingue 
nahme des erften Bjalm gugleich erflarlich, wie der Ver- 
fajjer dazu fam, jeine Darjtellung der Sittenlehre im 
aweiten Sheile des BriefeS nicht blos als eine (geiftige) 
Grfenninig — γνῶσις — einzufithren 1), jondern auch in 
Der Form einer Schilderung gweier Wege zu verjuchen. 
Aber trogdem erweilt fich jede Bemithung, die Reihenfolge 
Der Giibe nach) der obigen Cintheilung im Cingelnen gu 
rechtfertigen, αἵ jchlecdjthin erjolgtos. 


Dic Darficllung des Lebensweges im der fog. apoft. 
RKirdhenordnnig. 


Um jo bemertenswerther erjcheint e3, Dab die Rirchen- 
ordnung und ebenjo die apoft. Ronjtitutionen die im 
Barnabagsbriefe enthaltenen Wusjpritce iber den Lichtweg 
oder, wie nun der Wusdruct lautet, iiber den Weg des 
- Nebens in einer anderen und gwar fabliceren Reihenfolge 
wiedergeben. 


1) ο. 18, 
25 * 


376 Krawubty, 


Petrachten wir, um mit der fiirvzeren und einfacheren 
Darjtellung 211 begurnen, gundchft den Whjdhnitt der Mire 
Genordnung, welcher die Bejchreibung des Lebens- 
weges enthdlt, jo verdient bereits Beachtung, dap hier 
nicht blo8, wie im Barnabasbriefe, das Gebot der Gottes- 
liebe an die Spige geftellt, jondern alsbald auch das 
Der Machjtenliebe, auf welcheS der Barnabasbrief erft 
jpdter 211 jprechen fommt, beigefitgt und gwar jowobhl 
nach jeinem pofttiven Wortlaute alS aud) nach jeiner 
negativen Umjhreibung mitgetheilt wird.  ,,sohannes", 
heiBt e3 in der RKirchenordnung, οἡρταῦ : (ὅδ. find zwei 
Wege, Der eine de Lebens und Der andre de$ Lodes. Wher 
Der Unterjchied ift gro gwijdhen den awet Wegen. Denn 
Der Weg de Vebens einerjeits ift diejer: Crftens, du 
jollft lieben den Gott, der dich gemacht Hat, aus deinem 
ganzen Herzen und verbherrlicjen den, der dich εὐ} hat 
vom ode, was ein erjtes Gebot ijt; zweitens, du follft 
lieben deinen Yachften wie dich felbjt, was ein grweites 
Gebot ijt 1), an weldhen Stiicen das Gefeg hangt und 
Die Bropheten.” Wratthius aber, der nun das Wort 
ergreift, fiigt gum biblijchen Wortlaute de3 Gebotes der 
Niachftenliebe noc) die volfsthiimlice Umfchreibung de3- 
jelben Hingu, indem er erflart: Mes, was du nicht 
willft, daB eS dir gejdebe, follft du auch nicht dem Wn- 
Deren thun.“ 

Schon dieje Bujammenftellung der Viebesgebote ver- 
rath einen ordnenden Geift, in Ddeffen Wbficht e8 liegt, 


1) Die giweimalige Bahlung jedes Gebotes jowie der ungefchictt 
angehingte Gab: ,an weldhen Stiicen u. 7. wv." (val. Matth. 22, 
94---40) gehirt wohl gu den Ynterpolationen, deren fich nod) mehrere 
Ferausftellen werden. 


Ueber das altfircdhlidhe Unterrichisbuch. 377 


vor allem einen furzen, aber vollftandigen Snbeqriff aller 
Chriftenpflichten dargubieten und erft dann 3ur Crérte- 
rung von Cingelheiten ibergugehen. Diele Planmapigfeit 
Dev Darjtellung tritt aber noch deutlicher im Ddvitten 
Wpofteljpruche hervor, indem hier — von Matthaus dazu 
aufgefordDert — Petrus θεν das Meitgetheilte oie πάθετε 
Belehrung giebt. Der obige Spruch des Meatthaus 
jehlieBt ndmlich mit der Wufforderung: Bu diejen Worten 
aber fage die Lehre, Bruder Petrus,“ worauf Ddieler 
Volgendes vorirdgt: ,Du jollft nicht tddten, — nicht 
eHebrechen, nicht huren, nicht Gift mijcen *), nicht tooten 
ein Kind durch Whtreibung, nicht nach der Geburt es 
umbringen, — nicht falfches Beugnis geben, nicht Schmah- 
reden fiihren und nicht Schlimmes nadjtragen, jollft nicht 
Doppelfinnig fein und auch nicht Doppelsiingig, Denn eine 
Schlinge de$ Todes ift die Doppelsiingigheit; deine Rede 
joll nicht eitel und nicht litgenhalt fein; — du follft nicht 
habjiichtig fein und nicht rauberijd) und nicht Heuchlertjd 
und nicht bisartig und nicht Hochmitthig und nicht an- 
nehmen einen jhlimmen Rath gegen deinen Machften. — 
Du jfollft nicht hHafjen ivgend einen Weenfden, jondern 
Die einen zurechtweijen, der andern dich erbarmen, fiir 
andere beten, wieder andre lieben mehr als deine Geele.” — 
Dieje Worte beziehen fich, wie man fieht, nicht blos auf 
Den von Neatthaus vorgetragenen Lert: ,,Xlles was du 
nicht willft, Dak eS Dir gejchehe u. 7. w.", fondern auch 
auf Die pofitive Vorjchrift, den Meachften an lieben, welche 
woOhannes mitgetheilt hat. Sie find infofern eine erfte 
Wuslequig fowobhl der negativen al der pofitiven Wort- 


1) Vielleicht, wm unfrudtbhar zu madden”. 


378 RKrawuyly, 


fafjung de3 Gebotes der MNachftenliebe und bilden als 
jolche gegeniiber den an der Spibe ftehenden einfacen 
Liebesgeboten einen zweiten in fich abgejdhlofjenen Haupt- 
theil der Darjtellung, defjen eingelne Sage gwar gropen- 
theilZ dem Barnabasbriefe entnommen, aber in einer 
neuen und erjichtlider Meapen befjfeven Ordnung gujammen- 
geftellt find. Wn das erfte Verbot der zweiten mojaijden 
Gejegestajel jcjlicken ich in rvidhtiger Reihenfolge das aweite 
und vierte Verbot derjelben Tafel mit nahelieqenden Cr- 
weiterungen und Bujdken an und wenngleid) das Dieb- 
ftablsverbot iibergangen ift und auch die beiden Gierighetts- 
verbote de3 Defalogs nicht worilic) aufgenommen find, 
jo unterliegt doch der wobhlgenrdnete, που] an die Behu- 
gebote fich anlehnende und jchlieBlich zum pofitiven Geez 
bote dev Yachftenliebe fortjchreitende Gedanfengang faum 
einem Bwerfel. 

Mit einer allgemein gehaltenen, einleitungsweijen Cr- 
mahnung beginnt jodann ein dvitter, umfangretchfter und 
lebter Haupttheil der Unterweijung. Buer(t warnt Andreas 
vor Dem Borne, weil derjelbe 3um Weorde verleite. Hier- 
auf reden Philippus und Simon von Feblern, welche 
au Hurevet und Chebruch fiihren. Wuch Gafobus und 
Nathanael treten auf und dugern fich iiber Dinge, aus 
welden Godgendienft und Diebftahl entipringt u. 7. Ὁ. 
Wie man [εἰ bemerft, Handelt ἐδ Ὁ hier um eine 
planmdpig atngelegte, erweiternde WWusfithrung der von 
Petrus im gweiten Hanpttheile bereits ἔτ gegebenen 
Belehrungen, jo dab das Beftreben des BWerfaffers, jtatt 
des wirren Durcheinanders im Barnabasbriefe einen wohl- 
geordneten Leitfaden zum Unterricht in der chriftlichen 
Sittenlehre gu liefern, offen genug zu Tage tritt. Vor 


Ueber das altfirchliche Untervidtsbud. 379 


Der eingehenderen Betrachtung der betreffenden Mpojtel- 
fpriidje erjdeint eS jedoch awecmapig, noch) einmal auf 
die bereits mitgetheilten erjten beiden Haupttheile der 
Daritellung zuriichzufommen. 

Cine πάθετε Vergleichung mit dem Barnabasbriefe 
liefert namlich das Ergebnif, dah die Rirchenordnutg 
nicht blos eine andere Reihenfolge und befjere Ordnung 
Der einzelnen Mus)pritche darbietet, fondern aud) in der 
Lehrmeinung vom Barnabasbriefe abweicht oder doch 
wenigiten3, was im Barnabasbriefe befremdlic) und leicht 
anjtipig gejagt ijt, mit jchavfer Vetonung richtig ftellt. 
Diejes gilt Hauptjachlich von den zwei SGagen de Bar- 
nabagbriefes: , Du jollft lieben deinen Mach ften 
mehr al8 Deine Geele” und: ,.vcmmerodar jollft 
Du hajfen den Bifen.” ᾿“γαπήσεις τὸν πλησίον 
σου ὑπὲρ τὴν φυχήν σου und Εἰς τέλος μισήσεις τὸν 
πονηρὸν 1). Besiiglich des erfteren Wusfpruches, der von 
Dem biblijdhen Gebote: “Ou jollft deinen δὲ ἃ ὦ {ἐπ 
lieben wie dich 7610} (we σεαυτὸν) *) nicht uner- 
Heblich abweicht, weift 3. G. Mtiiller*) mur auf 
Rap. 1. und IV. des Barnabasbriefes hin, wonach die 
Jiedeweije ,iiber” oder ,mehr als die Geele” gu 
Den LieblingSausdriicfen des Verfafjers zahlt, fowie auf 
die vielen Composita und Decomposita mit ὑπέρ, die 
mit dev Vorliebe des Verfafjers fiir Hyberbolijde Aus- 
Dritcke zujammenhangen. Doch ijt hiermit das Bedentlide 
Der Wbrweichung vom biblijhen Wortlaut nicht hinweg- 
gerdumt und felbjt die Nedglichfett einer wirflichen Hete- 


1) Barn. ep. ὁ. 19. 
2) Lev. 19, 18; Matth. 19, 19, a. 
3) Wa O. S. 357 1.; vergl S. 55. 


880 | Rrawubty, 


rodorie nicht ansgejdlofjen, da der Barnabasbrief ourd 
Die Mtaflofigteit jeiner Wufftellungen auch jonft gegen 
Die chriftliche Wnjchauungsweije ver[topt, 2. B. idem ev 
in feiner Befampfung de3 Gudenthums die Behauptung 
wagt, das Biindnig, welches Gott den Bfracliten ver- 
heifen habe, fei den Legteren wegen ihrer (ΘΟ πο θα ρα εἰ 
niemals wirllid) 3u Theil geworden, indem auch die Vez 
jdhneidung niemals Bundeszeidhen gewejen uw. drgl. m. ἢ). 
Bum sweiten der oben angefiihrten Gage aber: οὐ mmer- 
Dar jollft δι Hajjen den Bbjen" bemerft 
S. Kaijer: ,Was [01 e3 heiken: Den Bojen haffe 
bi8 an’3 Ende? Die Liebe, Verjohnlichfert, Meilde, welche 
in Dem ganzen Rapitel gepredigt wird, lapBt uns hier 
nur an den Boijen par excellence denfen, der Rap. 4. 
ὁ πονηρὸς ἄρχων heift, nidt aber an einen bijen Men- 
jen” *). Cbenjo verfteht Xd. Harnac Hier unter 
Dem Bojen den Satan *). Hefele dagegen, dem Miller 
beiftimmt, Halt an dem gzundchitliegenden Sinne, wie ihn 
Die vorhergehenden und nachfolgenden Gabe fordern, felt 
mit dem Beifitgen: Auch den etwa auffallenden Aus- 
dru: ,Den Ruchlofen haffe bis an’3 Ende," wird man 
surechtlegen finnen, wenn man die Stelle cum grano 
salis verjtehen und dabei an das, was den Mtenjchen zu 
einem Ruchlojen macht, denfen will.” *) Dieje Verfchie- 


lhe 144u6 9. Bal. c. 2,38, 10 u. 15. Hefele, Send- 
jhreiben, ©. 243 ff. 

2) Uber den fog. Barnabas-Brief. Paderb. 1866, S. 142. 

3) Patr. apost. opp. p. 67. 

4) Sendjcreiben, S. 261. Miller, a. a. S. 368. Letterer 
fapt gugleid den oben mit ,immerdar” wiedergegebenen Ausdruct 
εἰς τέλος hier im Unterfdhiede von c. 4 τι. 6. 10 fiir gleichbedeutend 
mit denique, τὸ τέλος, woflir der Verfaffer fonft πέρας γέ τοι 


Ueber das αὐτο Untervichtsbud. 381 


Denheit der Wuffafjfungen geniigt wohl gum VBewerle, dak 
der fraglice Sab, wenn nicht unchriftlich, doch jedenfalls 
Dunfel ift und von Wnfang an leicht WAnjtofk geben fonnte. 
Welhe Stellung nimmt nun die vorliegende Bejchreibung 
des Lebensweges zu Diejem fowite zum erftgenannten Wus- 
{jpruche de3 Barnabasbriefes ein? 

Nicht genug, dab bald anfangs das Gebot der 
Niichftenliebe in jeiner biblifhen Faljung: ,ODu jorllft 
Deinen Nadften lieben wte dic jelb jt" 
neben das Gebot der Gottesliebe geftellt und durd) die 
VBeifiigung: , Wiles, was du nidt willft, daf 
eS Dir gefdebhe, jollft duaudh night dem 
Undern thun” ebenjo magvoll als angemefjen ver- 
Deutlicht wird, erfldrt Petrus geradeu: (ὁπ jolt tt 
αἰ τ haffenirgendeinen Menjmen, jon- 
Dern Die cinen τον εὐ εὐ ἄπ; Derandern 
Did) erbarmen, fitr andere beten, wieder 
andere lieben mehr αἵ deine Geele.” Οὐ 
μισήσεις πάντα ἄνϑρωπον, ἀλλ᾽ οὖς μὲν ἐλέγξεις, οὺς 
δὲ ἐλξήσεις, περὶ ὧν δὲ προςεύξῃ, οὖς δὲ ἀγαπήσεις 
ὑπὲρ τὴν ψυχήν σου.  Φίε Besugnahme auf die beider 
bedentlidhen Gage de3 Barnabasbriefes tritt Hier augen- 
fallig 3n Sage. ,Smmerdar jollft du hajjen 
Den BHjen,” fagt der Barnabasbrief; ,Ou jolt ft 
nidthajjen irgend etnen Mienjdmen,” erz 
flirt der Verfaffer des LebenSweges. , Du 7017} 
Deinen Yadhjten lieben mehr als deine 
Geele,” lautet dort da8 Gebot der Niachftenliebe; ,Du 


jage. Dod bliebe der Sah ,,Schlieflich haffe den Bsjen”, vom 
Menfchen verftanden, immer nod anjtspig. 
1) Hilgenfeld, IV. p. 97, 14—16. 


382 Krawugty, 


bift in joldhem Miahe zur Nadftenliebe 
nidtallgemein verpflidtet,” wird gletchjam 
in vorfichtiger Buritchaltung Hier dagegen bemerft, ,70 1- 
Dern e8 tft ein Unterjfdmied zu maden 
z,wijden den Mitmenjden: die einen jollft 
Du zuredht weitjen uwujfw. und nur unter 
bejonderen BVerhdltnijjen und Umftanden 
wird ἐδ Deine Pflidgt fein, einen Nadften 
mehr al3 Deine eigene Geele 3u lieben" *). 
— Was aber folgt aus diejem Gegenjage zum Barnabas: 
briefe ? 

Ohne Bweifel καθά diejes, dab der Barnabagbrief 
jchon frithzeitiq nicht blos durch jeine Blanlofigteit bet 
Schilderung dev gwet Wege, jondern auch durch) das 
Bedenflidje eingeluer WAusfpritche zu einer Umarbeitung 
DiefeS feines Whjdhnittes WnlaB gab, durch weldje nicht 
blogs eine lehrhaftere Oronung der Gedanfen gewornnen, 
jondern auch jeder Bweifel ἴδον Wrt und Wtap der 
Chriftenpflicten, wie ihn die aunffallige Wunsdrucsweife 
deS Barnabasbriefes Hervorrufen fonnte, befeitigt werden 
jollte. Vergegenwartigen wir uns nun aber auferdem, 
wie bald nach feinem Crjcheinen der in Rede ftehende 
Brief, ohne dab derjelbe ὦ jelbft fiir ein Werk des 
Heiligen Barnabas ausgiebt, dem Lebteren beigelegt und 
mit apojtolijdhem WAnjehen ausgeftattet wurde, da jfcon 
Slemens von Wlerandrien und nah ihm Ori: 
genes δου νυ gum Beweile dienen *): fo Leuchtet ein, 
Dak Die au veriffentlichendDe Umarbeitung oder Gegenfchrift 
nicht wohl ohne den Namen und das Wnjehen eines noch 


1) Bgl. 2 Cor. 12, 15; Rém. 9, 8; Exod. 32, 32. 
2) Funk, Patr. apost. opp. pag. I. 


Ueber da8 αὐ νας Unterridtsbuch. 3838 


hoheren apojtolijdhen Mannes herauszugeben war, fei e3, 
Dap der Verfajjer wirklich an die Hichfte erreichbare Gn- 
jtanz, an die cathedra Petri 21 Rom, fich wendete ἢ) 
und von dort eine Cnt}dheidung, ein Judicium Petri 
oder secundum Petrum *) binfichtlich der zwei Wege 
einholte, dDa8 er in feiner Bearbeitung mittheilte, fet e3, 
Dak er auf eigene Verantwortung hin, mit welder es 
jene Beit nicht gerade ftreng nahm*), das WAnjehen des 
Petrus Dem deF Barnabas gegeniiber jtellte. Jn beiden 
wallen erflart ὦ unS hier der von Rufinus itber- 
lieferte Doppelte Litel: ,Die zwei Wege oder die 
Cntjheidung des (oder nach) Petrus,” ohne δαβ 
wir gendihigt find, mit WLS. Fabricius an die Cnt- 
{Geidung des Herfules θορία der swet Wege *) 
au denfen, alS ob den Chriften des aweiten Sabrhunderts 
auch der Wp oftel Petrus berath{chlagend und aweifelnd, 
welche Weg er einjdjlagen folle, dargeftellt worden wire. 
— Doch gehen wir nun gu dem noch nicht πάθεν be- 
tracjteten dritten Haupttheile der vorliegenden Schilderung 
weiter, Der mit Dem Spruche de$ Wndreas beginnt. 


1) Cf. Tertullianus, De praescript. c. 36; Irenaeus, Adv. 
haer. ΠῚ, 3, 2. 

2) Uber die handjchriftlice Gezeugung beider Faffungen des 
LitelS ἡ. Ὁ, 

8) Wuper dem Judicium εὐϊοιν πο ein Evangelium secun- 
dum Petrum und eine Apocalypsis Petri, tvo3u nod Petri et Pauli 
Acta und Petri et Pauli Praedicatio fommen. ©. die Fragmente 
Diejer Schriften bet Hilgenfeld, N. T. extra ο., IV, p. 39 ss. 

4) Judicium autem dicitur, erildrt Fabricius zu dev ῥα ᾧ- 
υἱῶν de8 Rufinus (Cod. apocryph. N. Τὶ T. Il, p. 802), eadem 
ratione, qua Prodicus olim descripsit Judicium Herculis, 
quod tulit de duabus viis, altera virtutis, altera voluptatum. 
Cf. Xenoph. Memor. II, 1, 21 5, 


384 Krawubty, 


3 begegnen uns Hier gundchft fiinf Wbjchiitte, . welche 
regelmapig mit der Wnrede , Kind”, τέκνον, eingelertet 
werden und fon Dadurch von Den vorhergehenden Theilen, 
‘welche dieje Wnrede fehlt, fic) abheben. Die einzelnen 
Spritche ftellen fich auf dieje Weije gletchjam als vater- 
lie Mtahuworte dar, wie fie einem noch minder Lebens- 
Tundigen Neulinge gegeben gu werden pfleqen. Ou der 
Zhat bildet die Empfehlung eines mobglichft vorfichtigen 
Wandels eine erfte Cigenthiimlidfeit, durch weldje der 
Dritte Haupttheil von dem gweiten fic) unterjchetdet und 
zugleic) alS angemefjene ortjebung und Crweiterung 
deS bisherigen planmafig angelegten Untervidhts fic) aus- 
weift. Wndreas ndmlich fpricdt: , Mein Kind, fliehe vor 
allent Bdjen und vor allem, was ifm ahnlich ift! Werde 
nidjt z0rnig: denn Der Born fithrt gum Metorde (denn 
εδ ift et mannlicher Damon die Heftigkeit); werde nicht 
netdifd) und nicht 3anfifeh und nicht leidenjchaftlich: denn 
Daraus entfteht Mord. — Pbhilippus: Kind, werbde 
nicht gierig: Denn die Gier fithrt zur Huveret und jdleppt 
Die Weenfdjen zu ihr). (Denn ἐδ giebt einen werblicdjen 
Dimon der Gier, und der eine (sic) ftitrgt in Vereint- 
qung mit Born, der andere in BVereiniqung mit Luft 
Diejenigen, welche fie (!) einlaffen, in’s Verderben. Der 
Weg eines bijen Damon aber ift Berfehlung der Seele. 
Und wenn er einen fdmalen Cingang hat im Menjdhen- 
erweitert er ihn und fiihrt jene (Θεοῖς 3u allen jdjledjten 
Dingen und laft den Weenjchen nicht aufblicfen und odie 
Wahrheit jehen. Cure Heftigfett joll Mak haben und in 
furgem Wbftande giigelt und unterdritct fie, Damit fie euch 


1) ὦ, πρὸς αὐτήν, nicht πρὸς ξδαυτήν, wie die Herausgeber 
jareiben. GS. ty. τ. 


Ueber das altfirchliche Unterridisbuch. 385 


nicht in ein fehlimmes Unternehmen ftiirze. Denn Heftige 
feit und Luft werden jhlimme Damonen, die gewosbhnlich 
nach dem Mafe ihrer Wnfpannung andauern. Und fobald 
Der Menjch auf fie achtet, jchwellen fie in feiner Geele 
auf und werden groper und reigen thn fort 3u ungerechten 
Werfen und lachen dazu. Gie freuen fich itber das Ver- 
Derben der Wienfchen.)” — Simon: ,Kind, werde nicht 
ein Menjch, der jchandliche Reden fiihrt, noch auch ein 
jolder, der die Wugen hoc) tragt: denn daraus entftehen 
Shebrechereien.” — Qafobus: ,,Kind, werde nicht ein 
Vogelflug}chauer, indem ἐδ zum GoHgendienfte fiihrt, auch 
nidjt ein Banberjanger und nicht ein CGrforjcher dev 
Babhl- und Raumgeheimnifje 1) und nicht ein Reinigungs- 
meifter 7) und wolle davon nicht wiffen noch biren: 
Denn aus dem allen entftehen Gdgendienereien.“ — Yaz 
thanael: , Rind, werde nicht ein Liigner, indent die Liige 
zum Diebftable fihrt, und nicht etn geldgieriger und nicht 
ein rubmifiichtiger 3) επ] ὦ : Denn aus dem allen entftehen 
Diebereien.” — 

Bur vichtigen Beurtheilung diejer fiinf WApoftelreden 
oder viterlichen Mtahnworte ift nun vor allem hervor- 
suheben, dag augen|deinlic), was itber die Damonen 
gejagt wird und von un oben durch KRlammern von 
Dem itbrigen Lerte abgejondert wurde, nicht dem Dar- 
fteller dDeS VebenSweges angehirt. Denn zwar evinnert 
Hilgenfeld*) an Hermae Past. Mand. IL und Si- 


1) μηδὲ μαϑηματιχός, was Bidell aa. O. GS. 115 mit 
noterndeuter” iwiedergiebt. 

2) μηδὲ περιχαϑαίρων, ,Ausiiber von Stibngebraiuchen” (Biz 
dell, a. a. 0.), vergl. Virg. Aen. VI, 229 88. 

3) L. c. IV, p. 105 u. III, p. 37. 


886 RKrawupty, 


mil. [X, 22 und 33, wo Verlaumbdung, Anmapung und 
Unfrieden als bije Damonen bezeicdnet werden, fowie 
an Origenes, Tom. XX. 29 in Joan., wo von folcen 
Die Rede ift, weldje auch Sinden, die fir die geringften 
gehalten werden, DOamonen bHeilegen und demgemap die 
Scharfgalligteit als einen Damon bezeichnen, desqleichen 
aber auch die Verlaumdung. WAuperdem wies fchon Vaz 
garde?) auf Clemens von Wlerandrien hin, der Stromata 
III, ὁ. 9, p. 539 ed. Potter. die Gier fiir etwwas Weib- 
licheS evflart. Wber wenngleich Hternad) die obigen Wkuf- 
ftellungen, die Heftigheit jet εἶπ mannlicder, die Gter ein 
weiblicher Damon, minder befrembden, fo ijt doch, was 
liber diefe beiden Damonen ausgefiihrt wird, im Unter- 
jchiede von den itbrigen Fnapp an einander gerethten Gr- 
flirungen jo breit und fappijd) gehalten, dabei auch die 
Rede an mehrere Bubhdrer gerichtet 5), objdon PBhilippus 
gleich den vier anderen jeine Belehrung anfangs einer 
Perfon in der Cingahl giebt, dap dite Grembdartigfeit und 
jpdtere Cinfchiebung der in Rede ftehenden Sage wohl 
nicht beswetfelt werden fann. Um jo unanfechtbarer er- 
fheint Dagegen das Hobe Wlter der metften itbrigen Bus- 
jpriiche Der vorliegenden Mtahnworte, da fcjon Clemens 
von Wlerandrien Den Sag: ,,Sohn, werde nicht ein 
Liiqner: Denn die Liige fithrt zum Diebftahle” (7. 9.) 
al3 einen Wusfpruch der , Schrift” anfithrt und auc) das 
fiebente Buch dev apoft. Conjftit. durch feine mehrjache 
wirtlicje Ubereinftimmung mit dem vorliegenden Texte 
eine Ouelle verrath, die mindeftens folgende Gabe ent- 
Hielt: ,,gliehe vor allem Bojen und vor allem, was ihm 
1) L. c. p. 75. 
2) ,Sure Heftighkeit fol Diab halten” wu. f. tw. 


Ueber da8 altfirchliche Untervichtsbuch. 387 


Ghnlich ijt. Werde nicht gornig und micht neidijd) und 
nicht zanfifch und nicht leidenjchaftlich: denn daraus ent- 
fteht Meord. Werde nicht gierig; werde nicht ein Werenjch, 
Der fchdnbdliche eden fiihrt, noch auch etn folcher, der 
Die Augen hoch tragt: denn Daraus entftehen Chebrechereien. 
Werde nicht ein Vogelflugichauer, indem e8 zum Gigen- 
Dienfte fiihrt, nicht em Rauberjanger, nicht ein Reinigungs- 
meifter, nicht etn Crforjdher der Zable und Raumge- 
heimnifje. Werde nicht ein geldgieriger und nicht ein 
rubmfiicdtiger Wenjdy" *). — Diejer Nachweis des hohen 
Alters obiger Wusjpriidje erjcheint aber Ddeshalb von 
einigem Belang, weil diefelben im Unterfchiede von den 
ibrigen Abjchnitten des Lebensweges das Befondere haben, 
Dap jie ohne alle Cntlehnuungen aus dem Barnabasbriefe 
abgefabt find. G8 ergiebt fich hievaus, dak der Wutor 
deS in der Kirchenorduung mitgetheilten Lebensweges fich 
nicht Darauf bejdjrantte, die Wusjpriiche des eben ge- 
nannten Briefes iber die awei Wege awedmapig 3u ordnen 
und richtig zu ftellen, jondern and) jelbftftindige Sujage 
heifiigte, jobald dies gu der von thm geplanten Darftellung 
Dienlich jchien. 

3m Ubrigen finden wir auch hier den darzuleqenden 
Gegenjtand in fablicher Ordnung abgehandelt. Das erjte 
Der fitnt Mtahnworte warnt vor Giinden, die zum Ptorde 
fiifren, das gweite und Ddritte vor Verfehrtheiten, aus 
welcjen Hurerei und Chebruch entfpringt, das fiinfte 
vor Geblern, die den Menfchen zum Diebe werden Lafjen. 
Die abermalige Wulehnung an die Verbote der zweiten 
Tafel de Defalogs, welche ὦ jchon im swetten Haupte 


1) Π.. ὁ. ὁ. ὅ u 6. 


388 Krawupty, 


theile bemerfen lieg, fpringt von felbft in die Wugen. 
Muffallig erfcheint nur die an vierter Stelle eingejcobene 
Warnung vor den Dingen, die 3um Gigendienft verleiten, 
Da das Gigendienftverbot zur erften mofaifden Gefeges- 
tafel gehort. Crinnert man fich indeb, θα β nach biblijGer 
Wuffaffung (Hoj. 2, 2) ἢ) Gdgendienft geiftiger Chebruch 
ijt, Jo wird dieje CinjGiebung wohl erflarlic), voraus- 
gejebt, Dak Der Berfafjer ἐδ fiir angemejjen erachtete, in 
jeiner Darftellung der Chriftenpflidjten, in welder aus 
dem {chon dargelegten Grunde das Gebot der Gottesliebe 
Den erjten lak erhalten hatte, Hiernac) aber jofort das 
Gebot der RNachftenliebe Hingugefiigt und unter Senugung 
der Verbote der iveiten Gefebestafel naher erflairt worden 
war, auc) die Verbote der erjten Tafel nicht vollig un- 
θεν ταί gu Lafjen. | 

Dap aber der Gedanfengang de3 Berfafjers that- 
jachlic) auch im dritten Hauptthetle gunachit an die Bere 
bote dev sweiten miojaijden Gejegestafel fich anlehnt, 
verrathen auch die noch folgenden Belehrungen, die 211: 
virder{t abermals als vaterlidjes Yiahnwort fich einfiihren, 
jedocd) im Unterjdhiede von den vorbhergehenden  fiinf 
UbjeHnitten wieder gum Barnabasbriefe guriicgreifen. 
»Rind” 3), fo Lautet nadmlich die Fortjebung des zulebt 
Wngefiihrten, ,werde nicht murriinnig, indem ἐδ gur . 
SGchmahrede fihrt, und nicht anmagkend und nicht itbel- 


1) Auch im Hivten de8 Hevimas Mand. IV, c. 1. twivd der 
Wbfall gum Gshendienft αἴ Chebruch bezeichnet, ja gleich dev ehe- 
fiche Untreue αἴ ein Grund zur jeitivetligen Trennung chriftlicher 
Cheleute hingeftellt. 

2) Un diejer Stelle feblt, objchon die erneute Wnrede den Wn- 
fang eines neuen Mahnivortes fenntlich madjt, der Name des 
Apoftels, welcher das Folgende vortragt. CG. hieriiber w. u. 


Ueber da8 altfirchliche Unterridtsbiuch. 389 


Denfend: denn aus Ddiejem allen entftehen Schmabreden. 
Sei vielmehr janftmithig, indem die Ganftmiithigen das 
Himmelreid) erben. Werde langmiithig, barmberzig, fried- 
fertig , vein im Herzen von allem Bijen, arglos und 
rubig, gut und behutjam und zitternd hinfichtlich der 
Worte, die Du gehirt θα. Du jollft nicht dich felbjt 
erhifen und nicht geftatten deiner Seele Verwegenheit 
und nidt anhangen mit deiner Geele den Hochgeftellten, 
jondern mit den Gerechten und Demiithigen umgehen. 
Die dich treffenden Schictungen follft du fiir gut hin- 
—nebmen, wiffend, dab ohne Gott πἰ ἐδ gefchieht.” — Un 

Die Mtahnworte Hinfichtlich des fitnften, jechften und fie- 
benten der Behngebote reihen fic) demnach Warnungen, 
welche den WiBbraud) der Bunge jowie alle Unordnungen 
deS GunenlebenS mit feinen Gedanfen, Begierden, Er- 
regungen und Hinneigungen verbitten follen. Die WUhntich- 
feit diejes Gedantenfortjdhrittes mit demjenigen de3 Defa- 
{og bedarf wohl feined naiheren Machweifes. 

Doc der Berfajjer jteht noch nicht am Schlujje 
jeiner WuSfiihrungen. ,2homas", jo heift e3 weiter, 
indem ein fiebentes und [estes Ntahnwort Hingugefiigt 
wird, ,|prach: Rind, denjenigen, welder 3u dir das 
Wort Gottes redet und dir ein Meiturheber de3 Lebens 
wird und dir das Siegel im Herrn verlieh, jollft ou 
lieben wie deinen Wugapfel, jetn gedeiufen bet Macht und 
bet Tage, ihn ehren wie den Herrn: Ddeun wober die 
Wiirde de Herrn in der Rede mitgetheilt wird, dajelbjt 
iff Der Herr. Du follft aber auffuchen jeine Gegenwart 
tiglic) und die Ubvigen, damit du dich an ihren Worten 
erquice{t, indem du ihnen anhdangjt: denn als ein Heiliger 
jollft du durch Heilige geheiligt werden. (Du follft ibn 


Theol. Quartalfdrift. 1882. Heft LI. 26 


390 Krawugsty, 


ehren, je nachdem du ἐδ im Stande bijt, mit deinem 
Schweif und mit der Arbeit deiner Hinde. Denn wenn 
der Herr durch ihn fiir wiirdiq erachtete dir geiftige 
Speije und Tranf und ewiges Leben verleihen 3u Lafjen, 
jo bift du viel mehr jchulbdig die vergdngliche und zeitlide 
Gpeije darzubringen: denn werth it der Wrbeiter des 
Lohnes und dem drefchenden Ochfen jollft du das Ntaul 
nicht verbinden und Yiemand pflangt einen Weinberg 
und geniebt nicht von jeiner grucht.)" 

Soweit die Rede des Thomas. Die von unB eine 
geflammerten Gage entbehren des recjten Bufammen- 
hanges mit dem BVorbhergehenden, da 3ulebt nicht vom 
Lehrer, jondern von den iibrigen Glaubigen die Rede 
war. YWuch it die Wiederholung der Worte: , Ou follft 
ihn ebhren” auffallig. Budem fehlt diejer Wbfchnitt in 
den apoftol. Conftit. VIL ὁ. 9, wo das Vorbhergehende 
— in freier Wiedergabe — Yujnahme gefunden hat. 
Derjelbe ditrfte dDeshalb eine jpatere Bugabe jein, die itbri- 
gens, nach ifrer jwunghafteren Sprache 3u fechliefen, 
urjpriinglic) wohl nidjt vom BWerjafjer de$ oben befpro- 
chenen Abfchnittes iiber Die Damonen ftammt, jondern viel= 
leicht Durch den Legteren nur irgend woher entlehnt und 
hier eingejcjaltet worden ift, —- Das Gange aber fniipft 
swar ant den Barnabasbrief an, ftellt fic) jedod) and) 
in einen merflichen Gegenjab gu demjelben. ,,Du follft 
lieben wie deinen Wugapjel jeden”, Lejen wir dort, ,,wel- 
cher gu div de$ Herrn Wort redet”. ,,Denjenigen,” Heipt 
e3 Dagegen Hier, ,welcher zu dir Das Wort Gottes redet. 
und Dir ein Mtiturheber des Leben’ wird und dir das 
Giegel Des Herrnu verlied, jollft du lieben wie deinen 
Wugapfel“. Offenbar ift e3 wieder die Weablojigfeit und 


Ueber das αὐ νἀ Unterridtsbuch. 391 


Berfahrenheit des Wusdructes im Barnabasbriefe, was 
den Verfaffer des vorliegenden Mtahnwortes zur WMbrwei- 
chung veranlapt hat. Nicht jeweder, dev mit dem Worte 
Gottes im Munbde fich bei einem Glaubigen einfiihrt, foll 
Deshalb jchon der Hichften Werth}dhagung empfoblen feitt, 
fondern nur der eigentliche geiftige Vater und ordentliche 
Lehrer und Briefter der Gemeinde, welder einft dem 
Glaubigen das Siegel des Herrn, d. Ὁ. die Gaframente 
Der Wiedergeburt *), gefpendet Hat und jebt noc) immer 
fort ifm das Wort Gottes verfiindigt und durch Vermitt- 
lung der geiftigen Speije ihm zum ewigen Leben bebilf- 
lich ijt. Cbenjo will der Verfaffer unfjeres Mahnwortes, 
objdhon er den WUWnjehlugk an die itbrigen Gemeindeglieder 
und den Umgang mit frommen ‘Serjonen feineswegs 
unterjagt, vielmehr offen empfiehlt, doc) nichts von 
einem Gemeindeleben wiffen, wie e3 der Barnabasbrie} 
unterftellt, wonach jeder Glaubige ἄρ! an den itbrigen 
Gliubigen Seeljorge itben oder ifnen leibliche Wlmojen 
sur Siihne fiir jeine Siinden jpenden joll. Denn diejen 
Ginn haben ohne Bweifel die Worte: , Du follft geden- 
fen deS Gericht3tages bet Macht und bet Lage und auf- 
fucken an jeglidem Lage die Gegenwart der Heiligen, 
inDdemDduentweder vermittelft des Wortes did 
bemihft und hinwandelft zum ECrmahnen und 
jinneft auf Die Geelenrettung Durch das Wort, 
oder vermittelft deiner Hande jollft du hinar- 
beiten auf cin Lhjegeld fiir deine Giinden 7)”. 


1) Θ. ὃ. Probft, Saframente und Saframentalien in den 
ὃ erften chrifil. Jabrh. Tiib. 1872, ©. 98 u. 159 Ff. 

2) Epist. Barn. c. 19. gl. Constit. apost. VII, c. 12 und 
ay G. Miller, a. a. Ὁ. S. 366. 


26 * 


V/ 


392 RKrawugty, 


— Dod warum bringt dev Verfafjer das pflidtmiafige 
Verhalten gegen den geiftliden Borgelebten erjt an 
fiebenter Stelle, nach Wuslequig aller Verbote der srweiten 
Gefjebestafel, zur Sprache, da im Hinblic auf das ver- 
wandte Gebot, die leiblichen Cltern 3u ehren, und defjer 
Gtellung in der Reihe der Bebhngebote doch eine an- 
Deve Ordnung der Miahnworte richtiger jcheinen fonnte ? 
Die Ubereinftimmung de8 Gedanfenganges im dvitten 
nnd im gweiten Haupttheile ware durd) Boranftel- 
{ung de fiebenten Mtahnwortes bald anfang3 verloren 
gegangen und jo Die gegenwartige, Durchfictige und lehr- 
Haft anjprechende Blanmapigfeit des Ganzen beeintradtigt 
worden. Wie fich auf Grund der bisherigen Nachwei- 
jungen [δὲ jdjon jagen lat, zeigen die drei Haupttheile, 
aus welden Die vorliegende Schilderung des VebenSweges 
befteht, eine ebenmapige innere Bujammenjebung, infolge 
Deren Die einzelnen Cheile fich von felbjt 21: einem eingigen 


\Ganzen aneinanderjdlieBen. Umfabt der erfte Haupttheil 


erft das Gebot der Gottesliebe und dann den pofitiven Wort- 
faut und Die negative Umjdhreibuitg de3 Gebotes der Machften- 
Liebe, jo erldutert dev sweite Haupttheil εὐ] die negative Um- 
jhreibung und Dann noch den pofitiven Wortlaut der Lebt- 


genannten Hauptpflicht. Der dritte Haupttheil aber fiigt 


au Diejer Erlduterung eine Anzahl Wcahnworte hingu, welche 
jich μπᾶ den defalogijden Grundgedanten eben diejer 
Crilduterung der Meihe nach anjchlieen, dann aber auch — 
an legter Stelle — nod) den Schluftheil der Crlauterung, 
welder fich nicht mehr auf den Defalog, fondern auf den 
pofitiven Wortlaut des Gebotes der Niachftenliebe besieht, 
angemefjen beritcfichtigen. Denn gwar handelt das fie- 
bente Wiahnwort vor allem von der Pflicht gegen die 


Ueber das αἰ τς Untervichtsbucd. 393 


geiftlichen Vorgejesten und injofern nicht fofort von der 
jduldigen allgemeinen Niachftenliebe iiberhaupt. Wher 
einentheils wird auf dieje Weije nur derjelbe Gedanken- 
gang eingehalten wie im Weatthausevangelinm 19, 
17 ff., wo der Heiland die zum Leben fithrenden Ge- 
- Hote mit folgenden Worten απ: , Du follft nicht 
tHdten, nicht ehebrechen, micht ftehlen, micht falfches Beng- 
nig geben, ehre den Vater und die Mutter und 
Du jollft deinen Maditen lieben wie did 
jelb jt.” WenigftenS fann eS im Hinblice auf Ddiefe 
Stelle nicht befrembden, dak vor Dem Gebot der allgemeinen 
Niachftenliebe ervft die bejondere LiebeSpflicht gegen die 
nacdhjtiftehenden Meitmenjchen zur Sprache fommt, auch 
wenn dabei mit ὉΠ ΠΣ anf die gu bevichtigenden Wus- 
jpritche de3 Barnabagsbriefes ftatt der Leiblichen Cltern 
Der geiftige Erndhrer und das richtige Verhalten gegen 


Diejen in Erinnerung gebracht wird. Wndernthetls jchliebt 


fich ein Hinweis auf die allgemeinen LiebeSpflichten, wie 
fie ohne Unterjchied der perjinlichen Beziehungen durch 
Bethatigung der geiftlicen und leiblicen Barmberszigfeit 
geiibt werden jollen, in der That an das bisher Meitge- 
theilte nod) unmittelbar an, indem ἐδ zum Sdjlup Heibt: 

Ou jollft nicht Spaltungen verurjacen, vielmebhr 
sum srieden bringen die Streitenden; dw follft geredht 
richten; du follft nicht perjonliche Miicficht nehmen beim 
 Burechtweifen wegen eines Febltrittes: denn nicht Reich- 
thum gilt beim Herrn, denn nicht Wiirden zieht er vor, 
auch nitgt nicht SGhinbheit, fondern Gleichheit Wer herrjdht 
bet ihm. Jn deinen Gebet follft ou nicht zweifeln, ob 
eS fein wird oder nicht +): jet nicht ein Meenjch, der jeine 
ΠῚ Ἢ) Diefer Θαῦ ijt bem Barnabasbriefe entnommen, wie 


as 


394 RKrawugty, 


Hinde ausftrect zum Empfangen, zum Geben aber fie 
einzieht. Wenn du Haft, fo gieb vermittelft deiner Hande 
sur Siihne deiner Sitnden. Du jollft did) nicht befinnen 
sum Geben und follft nicjt murren, wenn du giebjt: denn 
Du wirft erfernen, wer der gute Vohneritatter ijt. Ou 
jollft dich nicht abwenden vom Bediirftigen, jondern Ge- 
meinfchaft gewahren in allen Dingen deinem Bruder und 
nichts eigen nennen*): denn wenn ihr im Unfterblidjen 
Genoffen feid, um wie viel mehr in den vergdnglidjen 
Dingen." | 

Dieje Worte jpricht Rephas, fie entbehren jedoch der 
Anrede , Kind”, die jon|t im dritten Haupttheile den Bez 
ginn eine3 neuen Wbjdhnittes fenngeichnet, jedenfalls ge- 
Hiren fie inhaltlich noch gum fiebenten Wtahnworte, indem 
fie Die Dort zu erwartenden Vorjchriften besitqlich der alle 
gemeinen Jtachftenliebe that}achlich ausjprechen.  Dieje 


alle iibrigen Gebote de8 vorliegenden Whichnittes; dod) fehlt dort 
dev erilavende Bujak: ,im deinen Gebete.” Der Hirt des Her- 
mas widmet der Verdeutlichung und Cinjcharfung derjelben Vor- 
᾿νε ein eigene3 Hauptftid (Mand. IX), aus weldhem 1 ergiebt, 
dak ἐδ fich hierbet um eine vodllig unetngefdhrantte Crmahnung zum 
verivauensyollen Gebet handelt. An der obigen Stelle laft jich 
qleihmohl die Cinjdaltung deS Sabes wohl nur verftehen, wenn 
derjelbe auf da8 bejondeve Gebet um den nbthigen LebenSunterhalt 
und auf die Verheibungen de Herrn Nath. 6, 25 Ff., welche den 
Menjden zur Sreigebigkeit geneigt machen, bezogen wird, da ein 
arderer Zujanimenhang mit den nachfolgenden Spriidjen faum δειξε: 
bar ift. 

1) Hatte der Verfaffer nicht auch dieje Vorjchrift des Barnabas- 
briefes miipigen und richtig feller follen? Wllerdings, wenn die 
fomimuniftifde Wuffajfung die nachfiliegende twdre. Brel. jedoch die 
Grundftelle Act. 4, 82, welche bereits diejer Auslequng iwiderjtrebt, 
indem unter den erften Chriften yu Serujalem gwar Niemand etivas 
jein cigen nannte, aber deShalb aller Brivatbhefih noch feineswegs 
eit Ende hatte. S. J. G. Miller, a. a. Ὁ, S. 362. 


Veber das αὐ τ ἄς Unterridhtsbuch. 395 


Worte bilden aber auch den Schluk der vorlieqenden 
Sdhilderung de$ Lebensweges felbjt, da die noch folgende 
Rede des Bartholomaus fich bereits mit einer allgemein 
gehaltenen Crmahnung zu unablajfigem Cifer an die ,, Brit- 
der“ twendet, ohne noch die Bejdhreibung de3 Lebensweges 
fortjegen. Die Darftellung dDeS Todesweges 
aber fehli in der Rirdhenordnung ganzlid: 
wie lapt fic dDiefes Fehlen erflaren? 

Vor allem unterliegt e8 feinem Bweifel, dak eS die 
anfdnglicje Whficht de Berfafjers war, uicht blos den 
Lebensweg, jondern auc) den LodeSweg 31 bejchreiben. 
Dies ergiebt fich deutlich aus fetnen Wnfangsworten: 
»&S jind zwet Wege, der eine Des Vebens und 
Der andere DeS Lovdes. WAWber der Unterjdied 
ijt groR zwifden den zwet Wegen. Denn der 
Weg Des Cebens einerjetts ift διε] εν" ἢ. Bm 
Barnabasbriefe wird der Unterjchied der awei Wege 3u- 
πάη durch die Bemerfung verdeutlicht, dak dem einen 
Lichtengel Gottes, dem andern Engel de3 Satan vor- 
ftehen 32). Dtefe Bemerfung itbergeht unjer Autor und 
verweift uns, um Die Grope de$ Unterfchiedes swifchen 
Dem Lebens- und dem Lodeswege gu erfennen, jofort anf 


1) ‘Odo δύο εἰσί, μία τῆς ζωῆς χαὶ μία tod ϑανάτου. δια- 
φορὰ δὲ πολλὴ μεταξὺ τῶν δύο ὁδῶν" ἣ μὲν γὰρ ὁδὸς τῆς 
ζωῆς ἐστιν αὕτη. Hilgenfeld, 1. ο. IV, p. 96, 21---28. 

2) “Οδοὶ δύο εἰσὶν διδαχῆς καὶ ἐξουσίας, | τε τοῦ φωτὸς καὶ 
4 τοῦ σχότους. Διαφορὰ δὲ πολλὴ τῶν δύο ὅδῶν. ᾿Εφ᾽ ἧς 
μὲν γάρ εἰσιν τεταγμένοι φωταγωγοὶ ἄγγελοι τοῦ ϑεοῦ, ἐφ᾽ ἧς 
δὲ ἄγγελοι τοῦ σατανᾶ. Καὶ ὃ μέν ἐστιν χύριος ἀπ᾽ αἰώνων 
χαὶ εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, 6 δὲ ἄρχων χαιροῦ τοῦ νῦν τῆς dvo- 
μίας. Ἢ οὖν ὁδὸς τοῦ φωτός ἐστιν αὕτη. Barn. ep. c. XVIII 
u. XIX. 


396 | Krawutsey, 


Die nachfolgende Schilderung felbft. Unmodglic) fann ἐδ 
Da fein Gedanfe gewejen jein, nur den einen Weg 3u 
jchildern, indem dadurd) ja jede Vergleichung und Bemef- 
jung de Unterjchiedes vereitelt worden ware. Wuf die 
Wbficht, eine Schilderung de$ Lodesweges fpadter nachfol- 
gen au lajjen, deutet denn auch das Wirtchen μὲν (δα 
nicht aus Dem Barnabasbriefe Hheriiberqenommen ift, wo das 
Wirtchen οὖν fteht,) in der Unliindigung der Schilderung 
deS LVebensweges unsweifelhaft hin. Wie aljo ijt das nach- 
herige Sehlen der Schilderung de3 Lodesweges gu verftehen? 

Wus der bisherigen Darlegung de$ Gubhaltes des 
Lebensweges geht zur Gentige Hervor, mit welchem Grnfte 
Der Berfajjer diejes Vehritiices nach einer wobhlgeordneten 
und planmdpig voranjdjrettenden Darftellung trad)tete. 
(δδ erjcheint deshalb nicht glaublich, dak eben diefer Schrift- 
fteller jeinen anfanglichen lan mitten in der Arbeit felbjt 
fallen gelajjen und gleichwohl weiter gearbeitet habe. 
Geinem Vorhaben gemap hat derjelbe vielmehr ficherlich 
auch Den LodeSweg bejdrieben. Der betreffende Wb} chniit, 
Defjen Umfang im Hinblicl auf die ent}prechenden Wus- 
fiihrungen im Barnabasbriefe (6. 20) und im fiebenten 
Buche der apoft. Conftit. (c. 18) nicht betrachtlich ge- 
Dacht gu werden braucht, ift aljo vielleicht nur durch ein 
Berjehen eines WbjchreiberS ausgefallen und Hat ur|priing- 
lich in der RKirchenordnung geftanden ? 3 

Die eingig mbglicje Stelle fiir den Todesweg wire 
swwifchen den obigen Worten de$ Kephas und der Schlup- 
ermahnung de Bartholomaus. WAber welcher WApoftel 
oder Wpoftelgenofje jollte Hier geredet haben? Gn der 
Cinleitung der Rirchenordnung wird ein Verzeichnif der 
Manner, weldje in der erften Halfte diejer Schrift auf- 


Ueber δα8 alttirchlide Unterrictabuch. 397 


treten, im vorans mitgetheilt'). Pitra*) vermuthet, dab 
dagjelbe von fpdterer Hand Herriihre und aus den nach- 
folgenden Angaben der Kirchenordnung iiber die eingelnen 
Redner gujammengeftellt je. Dent wider|pricht jedoch der 
Umftand, dag das Verzeichnibp auf dieje Weije nicht ent- 
jtehen fonnte, Da Sudas Gafobi, welder den Schlup der 
Vifte bildet, in der Rirchenordnung, wie fie vorliegt, nir- 
gends redend eingefithrt wird oder, wenn Die WAngabe der 
dthiopijden UWberfepung, wonad) Judas das fechfte, im 
qriechijchen Zerte unbenannte Yeahnwort vortragt, eine 
grifere Bedeutung als die einer blofen Vermuthung bean- 
jpruchen ditrjte*), zwifchen Nathanael und Thomas er= 
wahnt werden miipte, nicht aber wie im Verzeichnip als 
lebter von allen. Das in Rede ftehende Yamensverzetch- 
nip musk deshalb, wie auch Hilgenfeld*) jcbliebt, un- 
abhdngig von dem nachfolgenden Texte der RKirchenord- 
nung entftanden fein und bei der Textvertheilung an die 


1) Hilgenfeld, IV, p. 95, 5—8. 

Aye lee, Ὡς os. 

3) Wie Bidtell aa. Ὁ. S. 115 aus J. Ludolfi comment. 
in histor. Aeth. anfiihrt, beginnt in der athiopifden Uberfesung 
Dev Kivchenordnung da8 fechfte Mahnivort mit der Bemerfung: 
Infit Judas: O fili mi, ne sis quaerulus etc. Nun feblt aber 
der Name de3 Judas an diefer Stelle nicht blos im gviechijchen 
Lerte, jondern aud) in der memphitifchen und in der thebanijchen 
Uberjesung, aus weld)’ Legterer erft die Ubertragung ἐπ᾿ 8 IMthiopifde 
ftattgefunden bat. Lagarde, lc. p. Xu. 76. Die Angabe des 
MAthiopen fann deShalb nur fiir eine Vermuthung gelten, welche im 
Hinblik auf die Namenlofigkeit des fechften Mahnwortes fowie auf 
DAS Still[dweigen de Judas ja nabhe liegt, aber bet der Nach- 
lapigkeit, mit welder die Lertverthetlung an die Apoftel tiberhaupt 
gefhehen ift (j. die Fortjebung de8 obigen Tertes), nicht berechtigt 
erjcheint. 

4) L. c. IV, p. 105. 


398 RKrawupty, 


einzelnen Wpoftel bereits fertig vorgelegen haben. Ytun 
ift allerdings jcjon dieje Lertvertheilung eine jo nachlaj- 
fige und ungejchicite, δαβ eS jcjwer fallt, diejelbe dem 
BWerfafjer Des Vebensweges felbjt gugujchreiben. Der erfte 
Haupttheil, welcher die betden Gebote der Liebe enthalt, 
wird ungeachtet jetner Ritrze an gwet Wpoftel vergeben, 
die ‘Sheilung aber nicht in der Weife vorgenommen, dak 
Der eine Das Gebot der Gottesliebe und der andere das 
der Nachftenliebe vortragt, fondern jo, δαβ der sweite vom 
Gebote der Machftenliebe nur noch die negative Umjchrei- 
bung beizufitgen Hat. Das εις Weahnwort ferner er- 
Halt iberhaupt feinen Vertreter, fondern fallt mit dem 
fiinften zujamimen dem Jathanael 31, wogegen das ftebente 
Meahnwort auf swet Redner fich vertheilt. Nach der 
ScHlukermahnung de$ Bartholomaus endlich ift noch ein 
Wpoftel iubrig, welcher nicht mehr zu Worte fomimt. Yn- 
deB will man auch Hhieraus nicht bereits folgern, dak der 
Verfaffer dev Kirdenordnung ein anbderer als der des 
Lebensweges ijt, fo fonnte, nachdem Rephas das Lebte 
iiber den Lebensweg vorgetragen, etne etwa noch beab- 
fichtigte Schilderung de$ TodeSweges doc) nur dem Bar- 
tholomaus al dem ndchften im Rednerverzeichniffe in den 
Mund gelegt werden, jo dak fitr Yudas Fafobt dann 
noch die Schlugermahuung itbrig geblicben ware. Der 
Berfaljer der Kichenordnung jedoch Hat dies nicht jo be- 
liebt, fondern bereits von Bartholomaus die Sdlufer- 
mahnung vortragen faffen, objchon infolge dejjen «λα 
leer ausgehen mufte. 

Hieraus folgt 1., dak nicht erft ein fpaterer Wbjchreiber, 
jondern jchon der BVerfaffer der RKirchenordnung jelbft die 
Schilderung de Todesweges ausgelafjen Hat, — ferner 


Ueber δὰ αἰ ιν τ. Unterrichtsbud. 399 


2., Dak der Verfafjer der Rirchenordnung und der Dar- 
fteller δὲ LVebenSweges in der RKirchenorduung swei ver- 
jchiedene Berjonen find, da der erjtere that, was gegen 
des Leberen Blan und Wbficht war, — jowie 3., dap der 
Verfaffer der Kirchenorduung eine auf den Barnabasbrief 
Berug nehinende Darjftellung der zwei Wege, die zugleic) 
"αἵ Entidheidung de8 Petrus begeicynet werden fonnte, 
bereits vorgefunden und fitr feinen Bwee — nicht gerade 
mit feinem Gefiihl und Verftindnig — ausgejdrieben 
und verarbeitet hat. 


4. 
Die Rechisvorfdriften dev RKirchenordnung. 


Behufs miglichfter Sicjerftelling bes bereits gewon- 
nenen Ergebnifjes erjcheint e3 nun angemejjen, bevor wir 
sur Darftellung der κοινοὶ Wege in den apoftol. Conftit. 
weiter gehen, auch die itbrigen Beftandtheile der Kirchen- 
ordnung wenigltens furz au betrachten. Wir vicdhten gu 
Diejem Brwed unjere Wufmerffamfeit guerft auf die Rech t 3- 
vorjdriften der Rirdhenordnung. Dielelben finden. 
fich im Der sweiten Halfte der genannten Schrift und 
bilden Hier den eigentlichen Gegenftand der Darftellung. 
Shre Bedeutung fiir das Ganze ift alfo eine abhnliche, 
wie Die Des LebenSweges in der erften Halfte. Welche 
Srjdheinung bieten uns nun diele Mechtsvorfichriften dar? 

Cine Reihe von Sagen tragt deutlic) das Geprage 
hohen firchlichen Wterthnms an fic): aber dagwifchen 
finden fic) Bemerfungen, welche ebenjo deutlich al8 jpatere 
und zum Theil recht fonderbare Zuthaten fich erweijen. 


400 Krawupty, 


Die erfte Vorjchrift handelt von der Bij ch of 3- 
waht, wobei fehr Meine Gemeinden vorausgefebt werden. 
Der 21: wabhlende foll unter Wnderem einen guten Muf 
bei Den Heiden haben (ἀπὸ τῶν ἐϑνῶν vol. 1 Tim. 3, 7), 
unbeweibt jein auger HichitenS von einem Weibe Her ἢ 
und die Schrift gu erfldren verftehen, oder, wenn obne 
Sdhulfenntniffe, wenightens durch Liebe hervorragen. 

Dem neubejtellten Oberhirten jodann liegt ἐδ. ob, jo 
erflart Die sweite Vorjhrift, aus den Mednnern fetner 
Umgebung Briefter gu beftellen. ,,sohannes", bHeipt 
e3 wortlic), ,fprach: Der beftellte Bijchof, befannt mit 
der BVerwendbarfeit und Frommigfett der Mednner fener 
Umgebung foll zwet Briefter bejtellen, welche er bewabrt 
gefunden. We widerjprachen : nicht zwei, jondern drei! 
Denn eS find vierundswanzig Briefter, οὐ! zur Redhten 
und wolf zur Linfen. Johannes fprach: Cure Crinne- 
rung, Briider, ift gutreffend: denn die zur Redhten eme 
pfangen von den Erzengeln die Schalen und bringen fie 
dem Gebieter dar, die zur Linfen adhten auf die Menge 
der Engel. €8 follen nun die Briefter jein bereits alt 
und wwelterfahren u. 1. Ὁ... Der Grund, welder hier 
{itv Die geforderte Dreizahl der PBriefter angegeben wird, 
leuchtet nicht recht ein. Cd. BIH mer 7) verfucht folgende 
Crildrung. Wie im Himmel (val. Apoc. 4, 4 und 5, 8) 


1) Καλὸν μὲν εἶναι ἀγύναιος, εἰ δὲ μή, ἀπὸ μιᾶς γυναικός. 
Hilgenfeld ΙΝ ΙΟΙ ἸΛΒΩΣ τ Οὐ 
flart Hierzu: Vel absona haec verba sunt vel clare sonant 
oportere episcopum esse aut caelibem aut unius uxoris viduum. 
Doc) liegt in den Tertworten nicht mehr al: , Wenn der zu wablende 
nicht unbeweibt ift, jo foll die’ nur von einem Weibe herfommen,” 
wobet unberiiclfidhtigt bleibt, ob dieje eine noch lebt oder nicht. 

2) Ma. DL'S 176. 


Ueber das altfirchlidje Unterrichtsbuch. 401 


Der rieftern zur Rechten und denen zur Linen noch 
Craengel vorgejewt feien (1? objchon jie jenen dienen, da 
fie ihnen die Schalen reichen?), fo miipten in der Gee 
jamimtfirde iiber den zwetmal zwilf PBrieftern noc) ein- 
mal 2100] Crapriefter beftellt und deShalb in jeder eingel- 
nen Gemeinde, die gleicjjam einen Stamm de3 neuen 
sirael Darzuftellen Habe, nicht nur zwet Briefter, etner 
aur Rechten und einer zur Vinten, fein, jonbdern nod) 
ein Dvitter, Der tfnen vorftehe ἢ). Diefer miihjame Ver- 
juch, gwijden der geforderten Dreizahl von SBrieftern 
und den zur Begriindung der Yorderung angefiihrten , 
vierundswangzig Brieftern des Himmlijchen Dienftes einen 
Bujammenhang zu finden, zeigt wohl aur Geniige, dap 
ein joldjer thatjachlich nicht vorhanden iff. Hilgen- 
Feld 3) erachtet deshalb trog der handjdjriftlidjen Uber- 
einftimmung fowobhl de griechijden Originals als der 
alten Uberjehungen eine Lextinderung fiir geboten und 
jdjreibt ftatt gwei alsbald οὔ} jowie ftatt drei — υἱοὺς 
undswangzig, indem er Dabet an die Bwolfzahl der Wrie- 
jter in den Pfeudo-Clementinijdmen Recogn. 
VI, 15 und Hom. IX, 36 evinnert, welche Bahl nun 
bereits nicht mehr geniigend erfchienen jet. Diejem Aus- 
wege jteht indeB die Schwierigfeit entgegen, dap jebr 
fleine Gemeinden vorausgejebt find. ,, Wenn die Zab! 
Der Manner” , fo beginnt die vorhin jchou jfizzirte erjte 
ehisvorjdhrift, ,gering iff und fich wo feine Menge 
findet von folchen, Die wegen eines Bifchofs eine Wahl 


1) Die Wbficht de Verfajjers foll πα BKHmer dahin gehen, 
den Arehipresbyterat vom Cpiffopat zu trennen und dadurch den 
Iegteren 3u beben. (!) 

ΜΠ νος. ΠΝ pooh Lit. LOG; 


402 Krawubty, 


treffen fOnnen, weniger αὐ zwolf Mianner, jo 
joll man an die Jtachbarfirchen jchretben u. 7. w.” Cinem 
Bijchofe, der Ἰοϊῷ einer Gemeinde vorgejegt worden, 
fonnte offenbar nicht jdjon im nachften UWpofteljpruche 
aufgegeben werden, aus den bewahrten Wedunern jeiner 
Umgebung vierundswanzig Briefter ausguwabhlen. Wie 
aber lapt fic) Dann die vorliegende Stelle iiberhaupt ver- 
ftehen ὁ Wugenfcheinlich nicht anders, αἵδ᾽ indemt fie fiir 
interpolirt angejehen wird. Schon ϑαβ eine Rechtsvor- 
jehrift die Gorm von Rede und Gegenrede annimmt, tft 
befrembdlich. Was aber durch die Gegenrede eingefchoben 
wird, hindert allen denfbaren Snjammenhang. Ohne 
Bweifel gehirt deshalb die legtere nicht Dem urjpriinglicen 
Serte an, der lediglich die Forderung sweier Priefter 
enthalten haben wird mit dem gleichzeitigen Hinweis, dak 
weniger al zrvet zu beftellen nicht angemejjeu εὐ] εἶπε, 
Da, wie im Himmel 2001 Yriejter rechts und ebenjo viele 
lint igren lag haben, jo auch auf Crden mindeftens 
ein Priefter rechts und einer Linfs vom Bifchof δε 
Dienftes warten miipte *). 

Unmittelbar nad) den Prieftern wird in der ndchft- 
folgenden Vorjchrift des Vorlejers gedacdht, welder 
beftellt werden joll, und Hiernac) in einer vierten und 
fiinften Gorjdhrift der eingujebendDen Diafonen und 
Wittwen. Die Lewteren jollen dret an Zabl jeiu; ohne 


1) Wenn im Folgenden (Hilgenfeld, l.c. IV, p. 102, 9 ss.) 
von einer Mehrzahl von Prieftern, welche vedjts ftehen, die Rede 
ijt und ebenfo von mebhreren zur Linfen, fo denft dev Berfajfer 
Dabet απ die rechts resp. links ftehenden Priefter aller Orte, iwies 
der gleichseitiqe Hinweis auf eine Mtehrzahl der Bijchofe zeigt. 
Ubvigens macht auch diefe Stelle den Gindrucd eines frembdartigen 
Bujages. 


Ueber das altfirdhliche Unterrichtsbucdh. 403 


Bweifel gilt dte3 auch von den Diafonen, objchon es 
nicht ausdriiclich gejagt wird, augenjceinlic), weil der 
Text an der betreffenden Stelle gelitten hat *). Bon den 
Wittwen joll eine den mit RKrantheit gepriiften GBerjonen 
ihres Gejchlechtes Beiftand leiften, Wufgabe der beiden 
anderen ift e8, allen in der Zeit der Briifung beharrlide 
GebetShilfe zu leiften und fiir die Offenbarungen da gu 
fein, wenn eine folche iiber etwas ndihiq wird. Lebtere 
WAngabe lat fich wohl nicht anders verftehen, als dab 
ein Theil der firchlich bejftellten Wittwen von Wimtswegen 
au einer Wrt chriftlicher Ovafelperjonen auserjehen war, 
was in Der vormontanijtijden Beit in Gegenden, wo 
auch Bijchife ohne alle Schulbiloung nicht zu den Selten- 
heiten gehirten und der Borlejer den Diafonen vorging 
(j. oben und val. φέροι. Confttt. I, ὁ... 1.), wohl vor- 
gefommen fein mag 5). 


1) Bicell, a a. Ὁ. S. 125, neigt gu der Annahme, dab 
die Babl 3 bier durd) ein Schreibverjehen ausgefallen jet, zumal 
der Buchftabe, weldher die 3 bedeutet, y, twegen de8 mit γ bez 
ginnenden πήξει Wortes (γέγραπται) leicht weggelajjen werden 
fonnte. Dod) befrembdet ihn der Umftand, dak die Bahl auch in 
der athiopifdjen Wberjesung feblt, und er verfucht dann, auc) in 
den Lert, wie ev tiberliefert ift, einen Ginn 3u bringen. Die dajelbft 
angeflihrte Bibelftelle, Lautet feine Vermuthung, [01 vielleicht die 
τοὶ Stufen der Hievardie (Bijdhof, Bresbyter und Dialon) be- 
griimben. Wher hiergegen fpricht, dafs im den vorliegenden Rechts- 
σου νυ ζει der Diafon nach Bijchof, Priefter und Borlejer erft die 
vierte Stelle einnimmt. (ὅδ᾽ twird aljo wohl auch bier der Verjaffer 
der Kirdhenordnung den Lert jetner VBorlage auf feine Art geandert 
haben. 

2) Die betreffende Stelle lautet: At δύο προςμένουσαι τῇ 
moocevyy (cf. 1 Tim. 5, 5) weet πάντων (τῶν) ἕν πείρᾳ καὶ 
πρὸς τὰς ἀποχαλύψεις περὶ οὗ ἂν δέῃ. Hilgenfeld, 1. c. IV, 
p. 108, 14—16. Bidell, a. a. Ὁ. Ὁ. 126, tiberjebt: ,,3u Ent: 


404 RKrawubty, 


Der folgende Spruch handelt nochmals von den 
Pflichten der Diafonen und befteht gropentheils aus 
einer WiederHolung von WWnforderungen, welche jdjon 
vorher an diefe Rlaffe von Rlerifern geftellt worden find. 
YZ neu begegnen uns nur die Bemerfungen, dak die 
Diafonen Tag und Yacht den guten Werfen itberall nach- 
gehen, den VBedrangten bet der Vertheilung nicht aus- 
jehlieben und die Vermigenden zur Beifteuer fitr milde 
Bwede durd den Hinweis auf die Worte ,,unferes 
Lehrers’: hv jahet mid) Hungern und nabhrtet mich 
nicht” (vgl. Matth. 25, 35) antreiben jollen, da diejenigen, 
welche gut und tadellos ihren Dienft verjehen, fic) den 
Blak de Hirten erwerben. Warum deshalb auger der 
Reihe nochmals der Dtafonen gedacht wird, {ΠῚ nicht er- 
fichtlich und der ganze Spruch wohl ein fremdartiger, 
nidjt fchon urjpriinglid) 3u den Recht8vorjchriften ge- 
hiriger Beftandtherl. 

Nach den Diafonen und Wittwen erhalten ποδὶ 
noc) die Laien eine VeleHrung: fie jollen ihren welt- 
lien MWufgaben obliegen, ohne gegen die BVeifiber des 
Opferaltars fich aufzulehnen, vielmehr ποϊδίοδ an ihrer 
Stelle Gott 3u gefallen juchen, gleichwie die Engel thun. 


hiillungen, wo eS immer nbthig fein follte,” und bemerft dazu, die 
Bedeutung fet ziwetfelhaft: man fonnte an Lorperliche Cnthilungen 
denfen, fie denn Epiphanius, haer. 79, 8 3, ausbdviicflich ertvahne, 
Daf} Diatoniffen gu dem Biwecle beftellt feien, Hilfe gu leijten, wenn 
Dev Korper einer Frau zu enthiiller jet; indeh finne das Wort 
auc) auf vertraute Mittheilungen Hhilfsbediirftiger Frauen bezogen 
werden. Aber die Lebtere UAngelegenhett ijt im Verte durch nichts 
angedeutet und in erfterer Hinficht tware 3u evinnern, dab Epi- 
phanius 1. ὁ, von Entblipungen vedet (ὅτε γυμνωϑείη σῶμα 
γυναίου), nicht von ἔδυρουϊ ει Enthillungen, gu weldjen Dia: 
fonifjenbilfe nicht ndthig war. 


Ueber das altfirdliche Untervichisbud). 405 


Die AUnweijungen fitr die verjchiedenen Kirchendmter 
und Stande fonnten Hiermit jchliegen. 3 folgen aber, 
abgejehen von der allgemeinen Schlupermahnung des 
Petrus , noch fechs Sprite, die Dem Wndreas, Petrus, 
sohannes, RKephas, Safobus und Whilippus in den Mund 
gelegt werden, objchon alle jechS bereits in den vorber- 
gehenden WUWbjchnitten 3u Worte gelommen jind, mehrere 
andere Upoftel dagegen nod) nicht geredet Haben. Hilgen- 
feld bemerft deshalb, dap diefe Wpoftel}priiche, injoweit fie 
Die Rede de3 Philippus δορί αἰ) der Latenpflichten unter- 
brechen, gefdlidht oder Hhingugefiigt jeinen 1). Shr Gu- 
halt ift folgender: Wnodreas wiin}djt, Dap fiir Die Weiber 
ein amtlicer Dienft (— nad) dem Folgenden fcjeint der 
Dienft am Wltare gemeint zu εἶπ, worauf jedocd) Petrus 
nicht naber eingeht, —) bejtellt werde. Petrus erwwidert, 
Dak δίεδ jdjon gejchehen, aber noch iiber die Darbringung 
DeS Leibes und Blutes etwas Genaues angugeben fei. 
Wuch Bohannes jcheint dem Wunjde des Andreas 3u 
widerjpredjen; wenigltends lautet εἶπε Crildrung: Shr 
lieBet unbeachtet, Britder, als der Lehrer das Brod und 
den Zrant verlangte und eS jegnete, indem er fpracd): 
»Diejes ijt mein Leib und Blut,” dag evr diefen (den 
Weibern) nicht erlaubte, fid) 3u uns zu jftellen.” MWeartha 
jagt: ,Wegen der Maria, weil er jah, dab fie Lachelte.“ 
Maria jagt: «ἡ habe nicht mehr gelacht, denn er Hatte 
e3 uns vorbhergejagt, al er lehrie, dak das Schwache 
Durd) da Starfe gerettet werden wird." Hiernach bez 
merit Rephas: ,, Shr evinnert eu), dab einige jagten, 
ἐδ jei fiir Weiber nicht geziemend, aufgericjtet gu beten, 


1) L. ο. IV, p. 106. 
Theol, Ouartalfehrift. 1882. Heft 111. yy 


406 Krawugdy, 


jondern auf der Erde jigend.” Yafobus fpricht: ,, Wie 
fonnen wir aljo in Betveff der Weiber einen amtlicen 
Dienft beftimmen, auper etwa den Dienft, dab fie den 
Bediirftigen beiftehen.” Philippus endlich jcjliebt die 
Befpreung mit den Worten: (ΘΟ viel, Britder, be- 
sliglich der Beihilfe. Wer etn gute3 Werk vollbringt, er- 
wirbt fich einen Gchak: wer namic) einen Shag jammelt 
im Reiche, wird bet Gott αἵδ᾽ eingejchriebener YArbeiter 
gelten" ἢ). 

Diefe Metitiheilung deS BnbhaltS geniigt wohl, um 
nicht blos der Meinung Pitra’s beizuftimmen, weldher 
Die Ntachridjt itber die laichelude Wearia geneigt ift fiir 
eine jpatere Dichtung angujehen*), jondern itberhaupt 
Den ganzen vorliegenden Wbjchnitt als eine fremdartige 
und jpdtere Bugabe au betradhten. 

Nun folgt aus der Unterjdheitdung alterer und 
jlingerer Geftandtheile, απ welchen fich die swette Halfte 
Der Kirchenordnung zujammenjebt, allerdings πο nidt, 
Dab der Berfafjer der Kirchenordnung hier ebenjo wie 
in Der erften Halfte eine altere Borlage benitkt und 
durch Bufdge erweitert Hat, da mobglicder Weije die 
jiingeren Beftandtheile von einer noch jpadteren Hand 
herrithren. Ga Τορίετεδ ift wenigftenS bet der zulebt 
mitgetheilten Gejprechung itber den Wltardienft der Frauen 
wabhrjcdeinlich, da der Verfaljer der Kirchenorduung wie 
in Der erften jo auch in Der gweiten Halfte εἶπον WArbeit 
ein mehrmaliges Wuftreten deffelben Redners innerhalb 
der Gingang3- und Sdlubworte, folange jeine Namenlifte 
noch nicht erjchdpft war, wohl vermieden hatte. Wunders 


1) Hilgenfeld, 1. c. IV, p. 104, 8—28. 
2) L. c. p. 88. 


Ueber das altfirehliche Untervichtisbuc. 407 


Dagegen verhalt eS fic) mit der Bemerfung iiber die drei 
Griefter, indem Dieje, wie fich bet der Betrachtung der 
nod) itbrigen Beftandtheile der Rirdenordnung alsbald 
ergeben wird, anjdeinend vom Berjafjer der Lebteren 
felbjt in den dlteren ert de3 Rechtsvorjdriften εἶπας 
{chaltet worden ijt. 


{ 


δ, 
Die iibrigen Leftandtheile der Kirdhenorduung. Ergqebuif. 


Neben den bisher bejprochenen W2ngaben itber den 
Lebensweq und iiber die Firchlichen Ymter und Stinde 
enthalt die Rirchenorvdnung noc) am Wnfange und am 
Schlufje der beiden Halften ein Cingangswort und eine 
Schlubermahnung jowie eine vorausgehende beiden Halften 
gemeinjame Cinleitung mit vorherigen Grug und Ver- 
zeichnif der redend auftretenden apoftolifdhen Nednner. 

Das Cingangswort dererften Halfte lautet: 
»VoHannes fprach: Manner und Briider, da wir wiffen, 
Dak wir Rechenjchaft geben werden itber das, was uns 
aufgetragen worden ift, jo lapt ππ auf den Cingzelnen 
feine perjinlice Hitcficht nehmen, jondern e3 werde thm, 
wenn Gemand meint eine nitgliche Cinrede gu haben, 
Die Cinrede gemacht. C38 {chien aber allen, που folle 
sohannes reden. Sohannes Ἰρταῦ : (ὅδ find zwei Wege 
u. 1. w./ — Ridhtig abgefabt miigte der erfte diejer Gage 
etrwa heigen: δα wir wiffen, dab wir Redhenjdhaft 
geben werden u. j. w., 70 labt uns fret unjfre 
Meinung jagen und ebenjo, wenn einer 

Py Oe: 


408 ται, 


glaubt, gegen das Gejagte eine niglide 
Cinrede 3u haben, ohne δὲ {ὦ auf die 
PBerfon die Cinrede maden.” Der Verfaljer des 
Cingangswortes giebt fich jedoch nicht erft die Meithe 
eine3 geordneten Gedanfenausdructes, jondern eilt mit 
Unterdriicung de8 folgerichtigen Hauptgedantens alsbalo 
au Der Grfldrung iiber die freigugebende Cinrede. Dieler 
Umitand erjdeint aber um fo auffalliger, al8 die folgenden 
Wpoftelfpritdhe von feiner Seite etne Gegenbemerfung er- 
fahren — bis 3u der Stelle in der zweiten Halfte, wo 
Sohannes felbft das Wort hat und die Bahl der Priefter 
auf swei feftjeben will. Hier widerfprecjen ihm die 
andern mit der bereits al8 jpdtere Buthat nachgewiejenen 
Crilarung: δ: zwei, fondern drei” und Gohannes 
ftimmt ihnen gu. Wuperdem finden fich Gegenbemerfungen 
der Wpoftel unter einander nur noch in Dem YWbjchnitte 
liber Die Sheilnahme der Frauen am AWAltardienfte, alfo 
abermalS in einem jpateren Bujage. C8 unterliegt dese 
Halb wobl feinem Bweifel, dak der Verjaljer des vor- 
liegendDen Cingang3wortes, da ihm jo viel daran lag, 
eine etwaige Gegenrede im BVorans al3 gulapig Hingu- 
ftellen , mindeften3 die Gegenrede gegen den Gpruch des 
wohannes itber die Bahl der Briefter felbjt angebracht 
und Demnac) Die von ihm mitgetheilten alten RechtSvor- 
{hriften ebenjo wenig jelbft verfapBt hat, wie die Dar- 
jtellung de VebenSweges in der erften Halfte der Rirchen- 
ordnung. 
| Die SHlupermahnung der erften Halfte fo- 
Dann Hat folgenden Wortlaut: ,,Bartholomaus jprach : 
Wir bitten euch, Briider, da e3 noch Beit ift und ihr 
joldhe um euch Habt, Hinfichtlich welder ihr wivet, Laffet 


Ueber das απ υ ας Untervichtsbuch. 409 


nicht nach in irgend einem Stitcle, foweit ihr vermiget. 
Denn nahe ift der Taq de3 Herrn, an welchem Alles 
untergehen wird mit dem Bojen. Denn fommen wird 
Der Herv und fein Lohn mit Wm. Cuch felbft werdet 
gute, wobhlunterridjtete Berather. Du follft bewahren, 
was du empfangen Haft, ohne Hingufiiguug und ohne 
Hinwegnahme.” — Bemerfenswerth erjdeint Hier allein 
Die Befannt}[haft de3 Verjaffers der RKirchenordnung mit 
Dem Barnabasbriefe, deffen Schlupfapitel (nur der Cab: 
»du jollft bewahren, was du empfangen τι. j. w.” ift 
Dem Rapitel XTX. entnommen) der obigen Schlukermah- 
nung 3u Grunde liegt. Wir erblicen Hterin ein erftes 
Wngeichen dafiiv, dak die Cntfcheidung des Getrus, da 
Diefe Dem Verfafjer der Rirchenordnung ebenfalls befannt 
war, nicht blos anfang$, fjondern auch fpdter noch mit 
Dem Barnabasbriefe zugleich gebraucht wurde, wie died ja 
auch gum vollen Verjtandnip der erjtgenannten Schrift 
nothwendig war. 

oi Der gweiten Halfte ferner heift das (δ πε 
gangswort: ,, Petrus jprach: Briider, das Nothige 
wegen der itbrigen Wetahnworte werden die Schriften 
lehren, wir aber wollen, was un3 befohlen worden ijt, 
anordnen. lle jprachen: Petrus joll reden.” Und die 
Shlupermahnung: ,, Petrus Ἰρταῦ : Bn diejen Bez 
siehungen, Briider, bitten wir euch, nicht wie mit Gewalt 
von Cinem ausgeriiftet zum Bwange, aber mit einem Wuf- 
trage vom Herrn, dah ihr die Gebote bewahret, ohne 
Hinwegnahme und ohne Hingufiigung, im Namen unjeres 
Herm, dem die Chre in die Cwigteiten. Amen.“ — 
Beide Terte geben gu feiner weiteren Bemerfung Anlak, 
alS δαβ fie die Whficht ihres Verfaffers befunden, die 


a 


410 Krawugdy, 


beiden einander frembartigen Stitcke, welche ev gu feiner 
Arbeit verwendete, den LebenSweg und die firdhlicen 
RechtSvorjchriften, jcyon durch die gleichartige Cinfafjung 
alZ zujammengehirig darzuftellen. 

Die Verbindung der beiden Halften der Rirchen- 
orduung wird indek nicht blo$ auf dite angegebene Weife 
hergeftellt, jondern auc) und ganz bejonder$ durd) die 
yorausgehende gemeinjame Cinleitung vermittelt, in 
welcher der Verfajjer ἐδ mit einer Unordnung de3 Herrn 
rechtfertigt, Dab im Golgenden nicht blo’ γε Rechts- 
vorjchriften, jondern auch fittlidje VebenSregeln mitgetheilt 
und zwar nocd) den erfteren vorausgejchicdt werden. 
Dieje Cinleitung, deren ungelenfe WAusdrickswerje bei der 
jehon befannten Geijtesart de3 Berjafjfers der Rirchen- 
ordnung nicht auffallen fann, fautet: ,dndem wir nach 
Demt Befehle unferes Herrn Seju Chrifti de3 Retters uns 
verjammelt haben” (— ¢3 reden die οὐδ! Apoftel und 
Wpoftelgenojjen, deren Mamen der Cinleitung vorgefest 
jind, —), οἷο Hat e3, wie er e8 anorduete vor jenem 
(Wusjpruche): Shr werdet unter euch vertheilen die Cpar- 
chien, berechnen die Bahl der Orte, die AmtSwiirden der 
Bijchife, die Sige der Briefter, die BeifibordDuungen der 
Diafonen, die Verftindigkeit der Vorlejer in diefer und 
jener Besziehung, die unbejcholtenen Cigenjchajten der YWitt- 
went und wie vieles zur Kirchengrindung ndthig fein mag, 
Damit fie fundig des Vorbildes der Cinvichtungen im 
Himmel ὦ hitten vor aller Verfehlung, wifjend, dap 
fie Rechenjdhaft geben werden am grofen Tage de3 Ge- 
richtes begiiglich der Dinge, die fie gehirt und nicht beo- 
bachtet haben, — und er befahl uns, die Meden gu ver- 
breiten iiber Den ganjzen Erdfreis: jo Hat e8 aljo ung 


Ueber das alttirchliche Unterrvidhtsbuch. 411 


gut gejchienen, 240 GCrinnerung und Crmahnung der 
BritderjHhaft, wie e3 der Herr einem Geden offenbarte 
nach dem Willen Gottes vermittelft δὲ heiligen Geiftes, 
eingeDent deS Wortes euch Gebote 3u geben” 1). 

Diefer Prolog, der nicht ungeeignet fcheint, iiber die 
Cniftehungszeit der Kirhenordnung einiges Licht gu ver- 
breiten, gab det Herausgebern 3u folgenden Vemerfungen 
Unlab. Lagarde *) wiinfchte das Wirtchen ,alfo" 
(οὖν) im Nachjabe geftridjen 3u fehen. Jn WAnbetracht 
Der nachlagigen Schreibweije, die im vorliegenden YWbe- | 
jnitte herrjcht, ijt jedoch ein Grund yu Ddiejer Lert= 
dnderung nicht 21: erfennen, e$ ware denn, dDaB Lagarde, 
ohne e3 angugeben, den Borderjak ganz oder grofentheils 
fiiv unecht Hielt. Bitra*) erflart den ganzen Wbjchnitt 
|hon wegen de8 voranftehenden Yamensverzeichnifjes fitr 
unedt, um nicht, wie er jagt, die argen Sprachfehler 
mit gum Beweife angufithren. Bugleid) evinnert derjelbe 
Gelehrte daran, dag das Wort ,Cpardie” ftreng 
juriftijd) aujgefabt auf das Ende de8 vierten Jahrhunderts 
alS Entftehungszeit de$ ganzen Prodmiums jchlieBen laffe, 
Da vor dem erften conftantinopolitanijden RKongil fich 
feine Spur eines firdhlichen Crarchates finde; ja das 
unmittelbar Ddarauf erwabnte Ortsverzeichniz begiehe fic) 
vielleicht auf noch jiingere Nachrichten von Kirdhenprovingen. 
ude {ΠῚ die Meinung diejes AWutors itber die Cniftehung 
DeS Namensverzeichnifjes jchon oben widerlegt worden. 
Was aber die nachlajfige und fehlerhafte jprachliche Faj- 
jung anlangt, jo bildet diejelbe nach dem, was itber die 

1) Hilgenfeld, 1. c. IV, p. 96, 1—15. 


2) L. c p. 74. 
Saletan. of. 


412 ται, 


{chriftftellerife Meanier des Verfafjers der Kirdenordnung 
fich bereit8 ergeben Hat, feinen Grund, die Cinleitung 
demfelben abgujprecen. Von Belang erjdeint aljo nur 
die Bemerfung, daw firchliche Crarchate erft nad) 381 
fic) nachweijen Lafjen. Che wir jedoch Hierauf naher 
eingehen, mige noch die Meinung Hilgenfeld’s Hier 
angefiihrt werden. Derfelbe fondert die Worte: ,vor 
jenem : Shr werdet unter euch vertheilen die Cpardien“ 
τ. ἢ. τ. bi8 ,,gehirt und nicht beobachtet haben” durch 
Klammer von dem iibrigen Leyte ab und bezeicjnet das 
Cingeflammerte αἵδ eine Ginjchaltung, welche den Bue 
jammenhang der Gedanfen unterbredhe und jon durch) — 
Die Darin empfohlene Hierarchie fic) al8 jpatere Buthat 
erwetje *). Wllein Hiergegen ift zu bemerfen, daB der 
Hinweis auf die firehliden Wmter gwar von grofer Un- 
beholfenheit de3 WAusdruc’s zeugt, aber in der Reihe der 
Gedanfen nicht wohl jehlen δα. Sm Hinblice auf die 
nachfolgenden beiden Halften der Kirchenordnung hatte 
der BVerfaffer einleitung3weije etwa jfchreiben migen: 
poudem wir nac) dem Befehle unferes Herrn uns ver- 
jammelt haben, {ΠῚ von un gemeinjam befdhloffen worden, 
Ἰείποπι Wusppruche gemap 3u thun: Shr werdet beftimmen 
Die nothigen Cigen|chajten der Bijchife u. 7. Ὁ. Und da 
Der Herr uns noc) guvor befohlen, die Haltung aller 
jeiner Vorjchriften zu Lehren itber den ganzen Erdfreis 
Hin (Matth. 28, 20; Marc. 16, 15), fo hat ἐδ uns gut ge- 
jchienen, auch diefem Wuftrage nachzufommen und ench, 
wie οδ Der Herr einem Seden offenbarte, zundchft Gebote 
gu geben.” Dak der Verfaffer dieje Gedanten in einem 


1) L. ο. IV, p. 96 u. 105. 


Ueber das alttirchlice Untervichtsbuch. 413 


einzigen Sabggefiige unterzubringen verjuchte, ging itber 
feine jchriftitellerijdhe Mabigfeit, jpricjt aber nicht fitr die 
Unechtheit deS einen oder anderen Gaggliede3. Budem 
jebt das ,aljo” im Nachjabe einen weit}cdhichtigen , zer- 
fliifteten Vorderjak voraus und mitfte deshalb, wie La- 
garde wiinjcdht, ebenfalls geftrichen werden. 

Wie aber verhalt e3 Ὁ nun mit der ti Diefer 
Cinleitung angefiihrten Hierarchie?  Dreierlet erjcheint 
hier beachtenSwerth. 1. Der Verfafjer der Cinlettung 
eriwdhnt das Amt de$ BVorlejers nicht (wie e3 in den 
Rechtsvorjdhriften der Kirchenordnung gefchieht) vor, jon- 
Dern erjt nach demjenigen Der Diafonen: er vervath fich 
Hierdurch al8 verjchieden von dem BWerfafjer der MRecht3- 
vorjdhriften felbft, die fiir Gemeinden berechnet find, in 
weldjen die Befahiqung zum Borleferamte nicht gar 
haufig gewejen fein fann, da jelbft die Wahl eines der 
Schulfenntnijje ermangelnden Bijchofes nicht ausgefchlofjen 
war, was leicht eine augergewdhnlide Schagung und 
Geltung de Borlejeramtes zur Folge hatte. 2. Der 
Verfafjer der Cinleitung redet von einem Wusfpruche des 
Herrn, wonach die Wpoftel alles 3uv Rirchengriindung 
Mothige beftimmen jollten: er deutet damit auf den Gn- 
Halt dev nachfolgenden Rechtsvorjchriften Hin, geht aber 
iiber Denjelben in jeiner Vorangabe hinaus, da die lebteren 
von der angefiindigten Vertheilung der Bezirfe, Bahlung 
Der Orte und Unterjdhetdung dev bijchofllichen Wmts- 
witrdDen fein Wort enthalten. Crft bet der Berechnung 
Der Wriefterfige nach Dem Vorbilde der Hhimmlijden Cin- 
richtungen gejchieht in den Rechtsvorjdhriften, was {chon 
Die Ginleitung in WAusficht geftellt Hat. Dieje Berechnung 
Der Briefterfibe aber Hat fich und oben als Zuthat des 


414 RKrawubty, 


Verfafjers der Kirchenordunung erwieljen, weldem Hiernach 
auch die Cinleitung angehiren wird. 3. Der Verjaffer 
Der Cinleitung {pridjt, ohne Durch) die nachfolgenden Lerte 
Dagu veranlaft gu fein, von in Wusficht geftellter Ver- 
theilung der Cpardien, Rabhlung der Orte und Berech- 
nung der bifchoflicjen Wmtswitrden: er fteht Hierbet unter 
Dem geiftigen Banne jetner Zeit, deren Verhdltnifje und 
Vorginge fein Denfen und Reden bebherrjden. Auf 
welche Beit aber denten dieje Verhaltnifie und Vorgdnge 
hin? Nicht εὐ] auf da8 Cnde deS vierten Fahrhunderts, 
wie Sitra bemerft, jondern bereits auf den Wnjang des- 
jelben Gdculum, da jon das nicdntjdhe RKRonzil 
pom Sahre 325 in jeinem jechften Kanon hinfichtlid 
der Cpardjien und dev bijdhoflidjen Rangunterfchiede eine 
Cntjcheidung zu treffen veranlabt war 1). 


1) GS. Hefele, Conciliengejeh. 2. Muff. 1873, I, 388 ff. 
Bicell, aa. Ὁ. S. 96, verfebt die KRirdhenordnung in den Anfang 
de8 dritten Gabrhunderts, da, abgejehen von dem alterthiimliden 
Shalt dev RechtSporjdriften die Unterjcheidung de3 Petrus und 
Ὁρῷ Kephas jeit Clemens von Wlerandrien nicht weiter vorfomme. 
Lagarde, lc. p. XIX u. 76, und Hilgenfeld, lc. IV, p. 95, 
folgern aus dem mebrerwwabnten Citat bet Clemens von Alerandrien, 
dak die Kirchenordnung bereits vor diejem Schriftfteller entftanden 
jet. Wm fihniten it Cd. SFhmer, a a0. 6.175 ff. Derfelbe 
evblidt it der Rirchenordnung eine Wuseinanderjebung siwijden 
Nom und Kleinafien in Bezug auf den von erfterem beanjprudjten 
Brimat im Kirdenregiment und [apt diejelbe dempzufolge aller: 
jpdteftenS in dew fedhgiger Jahren de8 giweiten Gahbrhunderts σοὺς 
ἴαβὲ weren. Dem Johannes twerde der Vorrang in der Lehre 
sugeftanden, twie dem Petrus in den firchenvredhtlicen Wnordnungen. 
Von romifdher Seite miiffe deShalbh dieje Schrijt ausgegangen jein 
pind zivar zu einer Zeit, wo nod) nicht dev fchroffe Geijt Victors 
das friedlide Hand in Hand Gehen mit RKleinafien abgebrocjen 
hatte, ein Bruch, dev fich feit ettva 170 ernjtlid) vorbereitete. Dian 
diitfte vermuthen, Hier eine rimifde Gafjung der Verhandlungen 


“Meber dad altfireiliche Untervichtabuch. 415 


Werfen wir zulebt noch einen Blic auf den Grup und 
das YamensverzeiGunif, womit die Cinlettung be- 
ginnt, jo ijt die Grupformel: , Seid geqritht, Sohne und 
Sochter, im Namen de Herrn Fejus Chriftus!” dem 
Wnfange de3 Barnabasbriefes nachgebildet, das Yamens- 
verzeichnif aber: ,, Sohannes und MNatthaus und Petrus 
und Wndreas und Philippus und Simon und Safobus 
und Nathanael und Ghomas und Kephas und Bartholo- 
maus und Gudas Fafobi,” wie jchon dargethan wurde, 
nicht evjt aus dem nachfolgenden Serte gegzogen, jondern 
vom Berfajfer entweder irgendwo vorgefunden oder nach 
eigenem Belieben zujammengeftellt. Yohanne3 und Mat- 


Anifets und PolyfarpS bei deS Vebteren Befuch in Rom vor fic) 
au haben; dieje Zujamimentunft verlief ungeachtet der verjdtedenen 
Wnjichten tiber den Tag der Vafjafeter in jchonfter Gintracht. (δ 
wire aber zundchjt noch gu eriveijen, dab die Wbfajjungszeit dtefer 
Kanones nicht nod) frither fallen tonne. Das Oberhirtenamt hatte 
auch jon Johannes in jeinem Changelium dem Petrus zugeftanden 
(gleichviel bierfiir ob das fragliche Capitel nod) von ihm felbjt oder 
in feinem Sinne vom Herausgeber gefchrvieben war). So fonnte 
die Yohanneijdhe Kirche das χάρισμα χυβερνήσεως dev Rimijdjen 
anerfennen, bon twelcher ihr δα χάρισμα διδασκαλίας nicht fireitig ge- 
macht wurde. Daf man fpaterhin in Rom dies WActenftiict in Vergefjen- 
Heit gevathen lieh, tft evtldrlicy genug.” — So viele Cake baut 
BHEHmer auf die Thatfache, dak in der RKirchenordnung Johannes 
den VBortrag dev Sittenregel, Petrus den der Rechtsregeln beginnt. 
Dabei wird gugeftanden, dak die Anfchauungsiveife, welche dtefer 
Thatjache gu Grunde liegt, bis in die WApoftelzeit zurtictretdht und 
jomit die Rirchenordnung miglicheriweife dem hichften ἔν θη 
Ulterthume angehirt. C8 hatte deshalb nur nod) beigefiigt werden 
jollen, dap dieje echt apoftolifche Anfcauungsweife, weldje dem Petrus 
das Oberhirtenamt guerfennt, ohne deShalb die vollfommenfte Hoch- 
jhabung der Yohanneifcen Schriften auszufdhlieBen, gu allen Zeiten 
in dev Kirche forigedauert hat, um die Schlufpfolgerung, die Kirdhen- 
Ordnung fonne nicht fpater als in den fechziger Jahren des siveiten 
sabrhunderts entitanden fein, in ihrer gangen Nichtigteit blopgulegen. 


416 Krawubely, 


thaus migen darin αἵδ᾽ WApoftel und Cvangelijten den 
Vortritt haben, Petrus, Andreas und Philippus nad) 
Matih. 10, 2 und Mare. 3, 18 zundchft ich anfchlieben, 
die iibrigen zufallig neben einander ftehen. Seder weitere 
Crilirungsverjuch erjdjeint vergeblich. (δ fet deshalb 
nur nod beigefiigt, Dab Hilgenfeld 1) wegen dev Vor- 
anftellung des Sohannes Kleinafien als Baterland der 
Kirdhenordnung vermuthet. Wielleicht bevechtigt indep der 
Umftand, dak die noch vorhandenen alten UWberfesungen 
(awet foptijde, etne athiopijche, eine jyrifche und eine 
arabijdje) 2) auf Agypten und Syrien al8 erftes BVerbrei- 
tungSgebiet dDe3 Originals Hinweijen, eher zur MWnnahme 
eines Agyptijden oder fyrijden Urfprunges. 

Mus den voranjtehenden Unterjuchungen ergeben fich 
nun folgende Gabe: 

1. Der gegen Cnde des erjten Sahrhunderts 5) ent- 
jtandene Barnabagsbrief hat durch feine im giweiten 
Theile verjuchte Belcdhreibung der Wege des Lichtes und 
der Finfterni® jehr bald, wenigftens jdjon geraume Beit 
vor Clemens von Wlerandrien (iwelcher das Biichlein ,,die 
gwei Wege” bereits als , Schrift” benugt), gu einer ab- 
Sejonderten Darftellung deffelben Gegenjtandes Wnlaf 
gegeben, in ‘welder die betreffenden Sage des Barnabas 
briefes griptentheil beibehalten, aber befjer geordnet, 
einige ungebiifrlich gefteigerte oder doch mifguerstandlich fling- 
ende Unforderungen (,,Du follft lieben deinen Méachften 
mehr al8 deine Geele”, ,.tmmerdar folljt du Hafjen den 


1) L. c. IV, p. 105. 
2) Lagarde, 1. ὁ. p. IX ss.; XV ss.; Hilgenfeld, le 
IV, p. 94. 
3) ©. Fr. X. Funk, 1. c. p. IV gs. 


Ueber das altfirdliche Unterrichtsbuch. 417 


Bojen”, ,Ou folljt lieben wie deinen Wugapfel jeden, 
welder zu div des Herrn Wort redet”) richtig geftellt 
und mehrere neue Mtahnworte nach einem dentlicdjen 
Blane bingugefligt wurden. 

sei ἐπε oder Die Ent}heidung des Petrus” 
(oder: ,nach Petrus”) und wurde friihzeitig, jeden- 
ἴα {8 noch im gweiten Sahrhundert, als firdlides Leje- 
und Unterrichisbuch gebraucht, wie fic) aus dev Nachricht 
de3 Rufinus in VBerbindung mit dem Citat des Clemens 
von Alerandrien ergiebt. Der zweite Theil des Vitels 
rithrt vermuthlich daber, dak dem Namen des Barnabas 
eine Hihere Wutoritdt entgegengejebt werden jollte, gegen 
Deven Entjheidung Hinfichtlic) der bedenfliden Stellen 
de3 Barnabasbriefes fein Widerjpruc) 3u befiirdhten war, 
jet e3 δαβ der Verfaffer wirklich) eine Ent}dheidung beim 
Lehrituble de3 Petrus in Iiom eingeholt oder jchon auf 
Grund der eigenen Vertrautheit mit der fatholifchen 
Lehre feine Richtigitellung de$ Barnabasbriefes als Cnt- 
{heidung de Getrus oder nad) Petrus bezeichnet Hat. 
WZ ndcdhftes Verbreitungsgebiet der neuen Schrift aber 
ift Die Heimat des Barnabasbriefes, alfo YW ypten 1), απ: 
sunehmen, wohin auc) die Benugung durch den Wleyan- 
Driner Clemens weift. 

3. Die fogen. apoftolijde Rirdhenordnung, 
welde nad) dem Vorgange Hilgenfeld’s neuerdings 
mehrfach als ,,die zwei Wege oder die Cnt}cheidung de3 
Petrus” angefithrt wird, Hat auf diejen Litel Fein Recht. 
Denn der gweite Kheil derjelben, welcher die Rechtsvor- 


PP lr; X) Funk, lc! p.1V. 


418 Krawusdy, 


jdhriften beziiglich der Bifchife, Briefter, Vorlejer, Dta- 
fonen, Wittwen und Laien enthalt, eiqnete fich nicht zum 
Unterrichte fiir Meubefehrte, woz das von Mufinus ftatt 
Der Apoftellehre de$ athanafianijden Schriftenverzeicdhni|jes 
genannte Biichlein wahriheinlich diente. Der erfte Theil 
aber enthalt nur die Darftellung eines Weges, objcjon 
Die Wbiicht , aud εἶπε Pejdhreibung des andern Weges 
nachfulgen gu laffen, aus dem Lert felbjt ungweifelhaft 
hervorgeht, und verrath dadurc), δαβ hier die Dem Wle- 
men3 von Wlerandrien befannte Schrift itber die srwet 
Wege zwar verwendet, aber nicht vollftandig mitgetheilt 
iit. Das ganze aweitherlige Werf endlid) beruht auf dem 
Plane, dltere Sittenregeln und Redjtsvorjchriften gu einem 
einbeitficen Gangen 411 perbinden (mit Der Nebenabfidt, 
eine Θτθύδιπια der Priefterzahl von swei auf drei auch 
fiir fleine Gemeinden vorgujchreiben), und wird deshalb, 
worauf auch die Worte der Cinleitung fithren, am beften 
furz vor oder in die Cntftehungszeit de8 griechifchen 
Oftatencs der apoftolijden Conftitutionen, ὃ. 1. in’S 
vierte Sahrhundert *), verlegt. Ta 

4, Die im der Kirdhenorduung angewendete V e re 
theilung der Darjtellung des Vebensweges an eine 
“Wrgahe_ redend eingefithrter Berjonen. οὔδει an drei 
Stellen gegen die urjpringlidje planmapige Wnlage, welche 
aus der Darjtellung de$ LebenSweges felbft noch erficht- 
lich ift. Gn dem altfirchlichen Unterrictsbiichlein beftand 
die Schilderung de LebenSweges augenjdheinlic) aus 
Dret Theifen, von welchen der erfte die betden Gebote 
Der Liebe mittheilte, der dritte aber aus fieben durch 


1) Ὁ. Drey, NR. Unter}. tiber die Conftit. u. Can. der Wpoftel. 
Tb. 1882, S. 154 ff. 


Ueber das altfirchlice Untervichtsbuch. 419 


eine vegelmafiq wiederfehrende Wnrede unterjchiedenen 
Mahnworten fich gujammenjegte. Bn der vorliegenden 
KRirdenordnung ift der erfte Theil anf die Weije gwei 
Rednern zugewiejen, Dak der eine die beiden ViebeSgebote 
in pojitiver Gafjung, dev andere aber das Gebot der 
Nachftenliebe in negativer Umjdhreibung vortragt, objchon 
Der siveite und dritte Theil je nur die beiden Fafjungen 
δε Gebotes dev Yachftenliebe πάθεν erflaren, dagegen 
vom Gebote der Gottesliebe abjehen. Dementjprechend 
founte der erfte Lheil nach der Betrachtungsweije feines 
Verjaffers nur entweder einem eingzigen Lehrer in den 
PMiund gelegt oder jo gethetlt werden, dab der eine iiber 
Die Gottesliebe, Der andere iiber die Machftenltebe jprach. 
wm Dritten Cheile aber find dem Ytathanael zwei Veahn- 
worte gugefallen, wogegen das fiebente Wtahnwort an 
zwei Redner vergabt ijt. Die ganze Tollenvertheilung 
ift deshalb dem αὐτά ει. πιοιτ ιϑο εἶπ. _abgue 
jprechen und dem Berfaffer der Kirdenordnung 211211- 
{chreiben, der auferdem auch die Cingangs- und Θώπιβ- 
jpritche jowie Die gemeinjame Cinlettung zu jeinen Bor- 
lagen Hingugefiigt hat. 

5. Wud) abgejehen von Den eingefdjalteten Apoftel- 
namen ift Die vorliegende Schilderung des Vebensrweges 
ebenjo weniq wie die Reihe dev RechtSvorjchriften fret 
von jpadteren, fremdartigen Bujadgben. Bu diefen gebhirt, 
was iiber den manulichen und den weiblichen Damon 
gejagt wird, fowie wahrjcheinlich auch das eine oder 
andere Wort in den Spriichen de Johannes und des 
Shomas. 

Rann hiernacd nun zwar der Vermuthung Hilgen- 
feld’s, welche den Ausgang diefer Unterjuchungen bildete, 


Ἢ 


490 RKrawupcy, 


nicht beigepflicjtet werden, jo bleibt e3 doch immerbin 
jein anerfennenswerthes Verdienft, durd) Wufnahme der 
RKirchenordnung in jein Gammelwerk diefelbe leicht gu- 
ginglic) gemacht, namentlic) aber durch den Hinweis anj 
Die Machridst des Rufinus der dort enthaltenen Schilde- 
rung des eeu ees εἶπε erhohte Beachtung verjchafft 
au haben. “Ὁ Arnel ae 


, | Ξ oe 
| = “ 
\ Ayres ψ ἐδ... 


ς ἢ 
ee 
‘J 


Saar 
Sh encicaikabeh tied 


Die Darftellung dex zwei Wege im fiebenten hee der 
apoft. Conftitutionen. 


Behufs modglichfter Clarftellung unjeres Gegenftandes 
eriibrigt noch, Das jiebente Buch der apoft. Con- 
ftit. in Betracht zu giehen, deffen erfter Cheil (KM. 1—21), 
von Drey*) nicht unpafjend als Gitten|}piegel be- 
seicnet, in jeinen erjten achtzehn Rapiteln die Wege des 
Lebens und des Todes jchildert. 

Tiber das Verhaltni® diejer Schilderung sur Rirchen- 
pronung jowie Zum Barnabaghriefe macht Pitra ἢ) 


“folgende Bemerfung. Wenn man die Darjtellring Der 
get Wege in den beiden ebengenannten Quellen nehme 


| und die entfprecenden Beugnifje der heiligen Schrift Hinz 


aufiige, ergebe ὦ im faft unverdnbderter Reihenfolge 
Wort fiir Wort dev Lert der apoft. Conftit. Hiermit 
ift nun allerding gu viel behauptet, indem der GSitten- 
jpiegel der apojft. Wonjtit. feinesweg3 einer blopen Com- 


1) W. a. Ὁ. ©. 34, 
2) L. ὁ. p. 381. 


«--΄ 
«, 


Ueber das altfirchliche Untervichtsbuch. 42] 


pilation fein Dajein verdanft. Doc lagt fich nicht ver- 
fennen, dah dem bezeicneten Wbjdjnitte in der Bhat foe 
wohl der Barnabasbriey als insbejondere die in der 
Kirdhenordnung mitgetheilte Schilderung des Lebensweges — 
und zwar in ihrer urjpriinglicjen Geftalt, ofne die vom 
Verfaljer der Kirchenordnung Hingugejiigten Beftandtheile, © 
gt Grunde liegt. 

~~ Rebteres ergiebt fic) einentheil aus dem Fehlen der 
ebengenannten Gejtandthetle im GSittenjpiegel 1), andern- 
theilg aber aus der offenen oder andeutungsweijen Wieder- 
fehr der Sprithe, welche der Cntfcheidung des Petrus 
im Unterjciede vom Barnabasbriefe eigenthiimlich find, 
jowie aus der ganzen WAnlage, die fic) nur unter Bugrunde- 
fegung de3 Gedanfenganges der Cutjdheidung verftehen 
lapt. Go beginnt der Sittenjpiegel 5) die Schilderung 
Des Vebensweges nicht blo wie der Barnabagbriet mit 
Dem Gebote der Goitesliebe, jondern fiigt wie die Ent- 
jheidung unmittelbar den pojitiven Wortlaut und die 
negative Umjchretbung des Gebotes der Nachftenliebe 
hingu (c. 1, p. 189, 1—5), bejprict dann (c. 2 88.. 
p- 199, 6— p. 201, 4) gleich der Cnt}dheidung die Ver- 
bote Dev srweiten Gejewestajel mit WAnfithrung des be- 
zeicnenden Gabes: , Du jolljt nicht Hafjen irgend einen 


1) Nur an_einer Stelle, c. 11, ergreift ein Wpoftel fiir fidh 
allein. das Wort, ahnlich wie in dev Kirchenordnung, wahrend fonft 
(σαί. c. 1 u. 2) eine Rollenvertheilung nicht ftattfindet. Die Wus- . 
nahine tft vermuthlich dadurch veranlapt, dap e8 unpafjend jdien, 
Diejen Cinen, den Petrus, von den Piitapofteln darvan evinnern 3u 
laffen, wie er einft (Mtatth. 14, 31) vom Herrn als tMeinglaubig 
bezeichnet iworden fet. 

2) Wir citiren im Folgenden nach der Ausgabe der Consti- 
tutiones Apostolorum von P. A. de Lagarde, Lips. 1862. 


Theol. Quartaljehrift. 1882. Heft ILI. 28 


422 Krawubely, 


Menfcjen” (c. 5, p. 201, 2) und beginnt hierauf mit 
Den aus Dem Dritten Theile der Entfcheidung ftammenden 
Wnfangsworten: ,,%lieHe vor allem Bijen und vor 
allem, was thm dbnlich ijt (c. δ, p. 201, 5) die War- 
nungen begiiglic) der Berbote Der sweiten Tafel nach 
“τ des dritten Theils der Cntidheidung, woran fich 
(c. 9 ss., p. 202, 22—p. 203, 24) ebenfo wie im lege 
fever Schrift noch die Crmahnungen besitglic) des Relt- 
givnslehrers und de8 chriftlicjen Gemeindelebens anveihen. 
Demgegentiber finden fich auffalligere Whweichungen vom 
Gedanfengange der Ent}cheidung — abgejehen von den 
sahlreichen Brwijchenbemerfungen — nur fpdrlich. Der 
Hinweis auf die Gejahr des Gogendienftes geht im Sit- 
tenfpiegel (c. 6, p. 201, 15 ss.) Den auf Hureret und 
Chebruch besiiglicden Miahnworten (c. 6, p. 201, 21—24) 
voran, ftatt wie in dev Cntjcheibung ihnen nachgufol= 
gen: die Umftellung erjdheint, da der GHgendienft ohne 
Bweifel auch hier mit Huveret und Chebruch geijtig ver- 
wandt gedacht wird, ohne Belang. Bei dev Wiedergabe 
De 3weiter Bheils der Cntjcheidung (c. 2 ss., p. 199, 
6 ss.) fommen die Spriide: , Ou follft nicht tddten, nicht 
ehebrechen,, icht Rnaben jcdnden, nicht Huren,” nicht 
ftehlen”, aljo der Reihe nach das fiinfte, jechjte und fte- 
bente der Rehngebote zur Sprache, objdjon dite (δ εἰς 
Dung (twenigitens nach dem Lert der Kirchenordnung) 
an Diejer Stelle das Diebjtahlverbot itbergieng und neben 
Chebruch und Hurerei nicht die Knabenjchandung, jondern 
das Giftmifden und die beiden Wrten de KindeSmordes 
naunte. Warum febterer Giinden beim jechften Gebot 
Crwahnung gefchah, (apt fich uur unficher vermuthen : 
fiir Dem BVerfajjer deS SittenjpiegelS geniigte died. wobl, 


Ueber a8 altfirehlicdje Unterrvichtsbuch. 423 


um hier von feiner Vorlage abzuweicen und eine augen- | 
jheinlide Verbefjerung anzubringen +). Wm aufalligftenl; 
ift, Daf fic) bald anfangs (c. 1, p. 198, 5—p. 199, 6) 
swifchen die Mittheilung der GiebeSgebote und die Auslegung 
Des fiinften, fechjten und fiebenten Gebotes eine Langere 
Reihe von Bemerfungen einjchiebt, die nach dem Vor- 
gange der Cutidheidung erft {pater (j. ὁ. 5, p. 201, 2—4) 
au evwarten wire. Diefe Bemerfungen lauten: ,,Segnet, 
Die euch flucjen, betet fiir die, welche euch verleumden, 
liebet eure einde u. 1. Ὁ. Giebt Gemand dir einen 
Bacenftreidh), wende ifm auch die andere (Wange) 3u, 
nidjt als ob die UWhwehr verwerflic) ware, jondern weil 
Die Criragung des Bdjen fdhagbenswerther ijt; denn e8 
ipricht David: Ych vergalt denjenigen nicht, die mir Woles 
anthun. Brept dic) Semand gu einem Neeilenmarjde, 
gel’ mit ihm gwei u. f. w". — Was wollen dieje Sage’ 
bejagen? Sie zeigen ohne Bweifel, auf welche Weije dev 
Wusipruch des Barnabagsbriefes itber das Mah der Xach- 
ftenliebe verftanden und vertheidigt werden fonnte. Denn 
Dem Nachften mit eigenem Schaden willfahrig jein, wie 
e3 die angefiihrten Schrifiworte (Meatth. 5, 39 ff.) in 
gewifjem Sinne, wenn der Gewinn an ewigen Giitern 
nicht mitberecfnet wird (vgl. 1 Petr. 4, 13 ff.), ja doch 


1) Unmittelbar nach der Bejpredhhung des Diebftablverbotes und 
noc vor der Auslegung de3 achten Gebotes folgt dann ein Wb- 
fehnitt mit den angsgelajjenen Siindennamen jowie mit den Ber- 
boten, 3u 3aubern und gievig 3u fein (c. 3, p. 200, 5—11). Dieje 
Cinfchaltung widerfireitet augenfallig der im Ubrigen planmiipigen | 
Erirterung und ftammt deShalb wohl nicht vom Verfaffer ἣν 
Sitten|piegels felbjt, jondern vermuthlich von derfelben Hand, welche, | 
wie τοῖν noch jehen werden, auch andere Zujage gum GSittenjpiegel 
gemacht bat. 


mre 


28 * 


~~. 
Pane 


424 Krawupdy, 


fehren, Heibt jo viel wie den Machften mehr lieben als 
fic) jelbjt. WUnjdemend Hat deshalb der GSitten|piegel 
an der vorliegenden Stelle den verfingliden Sak de3 
Barnabasbriefes im Wuge und jucht, indem er gzugleich 
jeder iiberjpannten Wuffajjung durch die Bemerfung vor- 
beugt, da die Whwebhr nicht jchlimm und die Ertragung 
deS Bojen nur fdagenwerther jet, mit Hilfe der heiligen 
SCdjrift dargzuthun, dap der betveffende Wusfpruch feines- 
wegs volligq 3u verwerfen ijt, wie Dies ja auch Die Ent- 
jheidung des Petrus zu erfennen giebt und alle diejenigen, 
welche den Barnabasbrief in den erften chriftliden Sabhr- 
hunderten hoc) in Ehren hHielten, angenommen haben 
werden. Nur fallt dabei auf, dag dieje Crirterung nidht, 
| wie e3 dem Gedanfengange der Entjheidung gemap ware, 
ΠΟ] am GehluB, fondern fchon yu Anfang de3 sweiten 
Theils ihren Plab erhalten hat: die Wichtigfeit de3 Gegen- 
{tandes mag den Verfafjer gu diejer Umftellung und 918: 
weichung von jeiner Vorlage veranlaft Haber). 
Anvderjeits aber liegt dem Cittenjptegel nicht blogs 
die Cut}cheidung de3 Petrus, jondern, wie jon Pitra 
und Wndere bemerften, auc) eine unmittelbare Benugung 
Des Barnabasbriefes, wenn gleich erjt an sweiter Stelle, 


1) Hervorgehoben fet nod), dapB in den jo eben befprodenen 
Terttworten (c. 1, p. 189, 10) dex Sak der Cntfheidung: ,Ou 
jollft nicht haffen irgend einen Menjdjen” vom Verfaffer des SGitten- 
{piegel3 αἴ ein Schriftwort angefiihrt wird, wie die mit einem 
anderen Ausjpruche deffelben Untervichishuces Clemens von Wle- 
xanbdrien thut. Denn objdon der Verfaffer den fraglichen Sak 
jowohl mit Deut. 28, 8 (1. 6.) al auch mit Lev. 19,17 cf v.13 
(j. c. 5, p. 201, 2—4) verband, fo bleibt doch beftehen, dap fich 
das betveffende Citat in der heiligen Schrift felbft nicht findet, alfo 
wohl nur aus der Cntjdheidung befannt und wie ein Sdhriftwort 
in Gebrauch gefommen trav. 


Ueber das alttirchlidje Unterrichtsbud. 425 


au Grunde. Dies ergiebt fic) vor Willem aus dem b- 
{chnitt de3 Sittenfpiegels, in twelchem das fiinfte, fechfte 
und fiebente der Behngebote abwetdhend von der Entichei- 


Dung zur Sprache fommen (c. 2, p. 199, 6 ss.), indent’ 


Die Dret Spriiche fitr das jechfte Gebot: Du follft nicht 
ehebredjen, nicht Rnaben jcdhdnden, nicht Huren” dem 
Barnabasbriefe (c. 19) entnommen find. uf eine un- 
mittelbare Benubung deffelben Briefes deutet ferner attd) 
Die Art und Weile, wie der Sittenfpiegel — anjcheinend 
mit abfichilicer Whweidung von der Wortfaffung der 
. Entiheidung (j. w. u.) und Annabheruug an den Barna- 

basbrief — fich itber den Verfehr mit den itbrigen Glau- 
bigen dupert (c. 9, ᾳ. 202, 22—q. 203, 4). Nament- 
lich aber diirfte unmittelbar auf den Barnabasbrief zuviict- 
aufiihren fein, was der GSittenjpiegel nach der BWorjchrift, 
nits eigen 3u nennen, mit welder die Schilderung des 
Vebensweges. in Dev Kirchenordnung jchltebt, πο von 
weiteren Ermahnungen folgen (aft. ,, Ou follft deine Hand 
nicht auriicziehen von deinem CGohne oder von deiner 
Lodhter“ , heift e8 an Ddiefer Stelle (c. 12—17, p. 
203, 24—p. 204, 24), ,jondern von ihrer Sugend auf 
jollft du fie Lehren die Furcht Gottes ... Ou jollft detnem 
Knechte oder der Magd, die auf denjelben Gott vertrauen, 
nicht mit Bitterfeit der Geele gebieten .. . Und ihr, ὁ 
RKnechte, unterwerfet euch euren Gebietern als einem Hin- 
weis auf Gott mit Cingesogenheit und Gurdt .. . Ou 
follft Haffen alle Heuchelei . . . Nicht mbgeft du verlafjen 
Die Gebote des Herrn, jollft vielmehr bewahren, was ou 
von ifm empfangen haft, ohne Hingufiigung 3u ihnen 
und ohne Hinwegnahme von ifnen . . . Du follft dem 


496 RKrawubdty, 


Herrn deinem Gotte deine Sitnden befennen *) ... Nicht 
migeft du fommen gu deinem Gebete am Lage deiner 
Bosheit” .. . Diefe Crmahnungen fehlen jammtlich in 
Der Kirchenordnung, finden fich aber im Lichtwege des 
Barnabagbriefes. Yun erjeheint_e8 allerdings nicht un- 
miglid), δαβ dex Perfaffer der Rie wie ev 
Die Darftellung de8 Todesweges iibergangen, fo auch bei 
Mittheilung des Lebensweqes am CSehlup eine Wngzahl 
Sie ausgelaffen habe, welche in_der Cntfcheidung ge- 
ftanden und bier vom Berfafjer des Sittenjpiegels aus 
“Dderfelben mitgetheilt werden. €rwigt man jedod) den 
Gedantengang, welchen die Fraglichen Siibe (al3 Beftand- 
— theile der Enticheidung gedadht) ergeben — eS ift, wie 
wenn gejagt wiirde: ,Mimm dich bet aller Hingebung 
απ Gemeindeleben doch auch dev Deinen an und ὁ ἐς 
fleipe dich felbft ungeheucelter Grimmig- 
Feit“! — ἴο ον] 81 dieje legtere Wendung als Begug- 
nahime auf das Geborher Sottesliebe gegen die fonft 
erfichtlidhe Planmagigfeit der einzelnen Glieder, aus wel- 
chen fic) in der Cntiheidung die Darftellung de$ Vebens- 
weges harmonijch gujammenfitgt, inbdem Der dritte Bheil 
nach jeiner ganzen Wnlage ebenfo wie der sweite lediglich 
Die negative Umjchretbung de Gebotes der Machftenliebe 
ποῦ dem pofitiven Wortlaute deffelben Gebotes gum 


1) Rivifchen der Crmahnung zum Siindenbefenntnif und der 
Warnung bestiglich de3 Gebetes jteht (c. 15 und 16, p. 204, 15—23) 
eine — dem Varnabagsbriefe fremde — VBelehrung tiber das pflidht- 
muipige Verhalten gegen Vater und Mutter und Briider und Ver- 
Wwandte fowie gegen den Konig und jeine Beamten: ein Wbfchnitt, 
welcher fchon etiwas frither hatte beigefiigt werden follen, hier daz 
gegen den Zufammenhang unterbricht und deshalb nicht fdon dem 
Berfajfer de8 Sittenfpiegels angehiren diirfte. 


Ueber das altfivdhliche Untervidtsbuch. 427 


Gegenftande Hat. Auch Hier liegt alfo wohl eine ππ- 
mittelbare Benubung Deg BVarnabagbriefes vor, dure) 
‘welche der Berfafjer des Sittenfpiegels e3 eae da 
feiner WUrbeit, Die gundchft den Lert der Cntfcheidung 
grogentheils unverdndert in fic) aufgenommen at, auch 
aus dem Lichtwege de Barnabasbriefe3 nur noch wenige 
minder erheblide Gage itberhaupt febfen *). 

Wuber der Darftellung des LebenSweges, auf welche 
Die vorftehenden Bemerfungen jich beziehen, enthalt der 
Sittenjpiegel aber auch — und er gewinnt dadurch fiir 
uns eine erhihte Bedeutung — eine Schilderung des 
SovdesSweges, die in der Kirchenordnung feblt, in der 
Entjheidung aber nach dem Vorbilde de Barnabasbriefes 
nahweislich geftanden at. Diefelbe fautet (c. 18, p. 
204, 26— p. 205, 15): ,Der Weg de3 Todes aber ift 
an jdlimmen Handlungen erfennbar: denn auf demjelben 
findet [Ὁ Unfenntnif Gottes und Ginfithrung vieler 
Gitter, — durch welche Mordthaten (entftehen), Che- 
brechereien, Hurereien, Meineide, gejebrwidrige Begierden, 
Diebereien, Gdbendienereien, Baubereien, Giftmijchereien, 
Raubereten, falfehe Beugnifje, Heucheleien, Doppelhergig- 
feiten, Betrug, Uberhebung, Bosheit, Anmakung, Hab- 
jucht, jchdndliche Rede, Ciferjucht, Brechheit, Hochmuth, 
Hoffart, Sdheulojigfeit, Verfolgung der Guten, gegen die 
Wahrheit Hak, zur Litge Liebe, Unfenntnik der Geredhtig- 


1) Der Sak de8 VBarnabasbriefes: ,,Micht mbge das Wort 
Gottes von div ausgehen in der Unveinheit getwiijer Leute” wurde 
im Sittenfpiegel wie in der Cnticheidung wohl wegen feiner Duntel- 
Heit iibergangen; einige andere WAusfpriiche wie: , Du follft einfad 
fein tm Herzen und reich int Geijte, follft nidjt anhangen denjenigen, 
die auf dent Todesivege wandeln” τι. orgl. modten von geringem 
Belang fcheinen. 


428 RKrawubey, 


feit: — denn die Vollbringer diefer Dinge hangen nicht 
dem Guten an noch auch dem gerechten Gerichte, find 
wachjam nicht 3um Guten, jondern zum Schlimmen, von 
Denten weitab ift Sanftmuth und Geduld, das Falfche lie 
bend, jagend nad) Belohnung, nicht bemitleidend den 
Armen, fich nicht anftrengend wegen eines jchwer Bee 
fafteten, nicht erfennend den, Der fie gemacht, Metdrder 
yon Rindern, Berftdrer de3 Gebildes Gottes, fic) abwen- 
Dend vom Vediirftigen, GBeiftande der Reichen, VBerddter 
der Armen, in Wem fiindhaft. Wtichtet ir bewabrt 
fein, Kinder, vor allen diejen Dingen!” — Vergleidjt 
man mit Diejer Darftellung das fchon mitgetheilte ent- 
Jprechende Siindenverzeidhnif des Barnabagbriefes (c. 20), 
jo ergiebt fich, Dag der Sitten}ptegel tm dritten oben dur) 
Gedanfenftrich angedenteten Whjchnitte τα]: wortlic) mit 
Dem Barnabasbriefe iibereinftimmt, im arweiten fic) mit 
Demjelben nur mehrfach bevithrt, im erjten aber jowie in 
der Schlupformel jeder Anlehnung an denjelben πιθοῦ τί. 
eragt man deShalb, woher dieje Whweichung jtamme, 70 
Dentet nichts darauf Hin, da der Berfafjer des CSitten- 
IpiegelS, welder fich bier gegen jeine fonftige Gewobhn- 
Heit aller Gchriftcitate und erfldrenden S8wifchenbemer- 
fungen enthalt, nad) einem eigenen Plane den Lert des 
Barnabasbriefes umgeftaltet habe, wohl aber. liegt Dte 
— Vermuthung fehr nahe, δαβ die Entfheidung wie fonft 

jo auc) Hier des Werfafjers unmittelbare Sruelle fei. Bue 
Dem ent}prechen Die Dret. Ubjchnitte deS_ Lodesweges 
einigermafen Dent drei. Thelen , aug weldjen fich in der 
Ent}heidung die Schilderung des Lebensweges zutfanumen- 
jebt. Der Gottes- und Nadhftenliebe auf der einen Seite 
jteht auf der andern die Unfenntnif Gottes und die 


Ueber das αἰνῶς Unterricht sbuch. 499 


Cinfithrung frembder Gbtter gegeniiber, die Sitnden wider 
Das fiinfte und fechfte der Behngebote beginnen wie im 
Lebenswege, jo auch in der vorliegenden Darjtellung den 
arweiten Sheil oder Wbfchnitt, zur Warnung vor allem 
Boijen und vor allem, was ihm abhnlich ift, im WAnfange 
Der fieben, mit der WAnrede ἀπ" beginnenden Mtahn- 
worte follte vielleicht im dritten Wbjchnitte des Lodes- 
weges die Sdhlupformel: ,, Mevehtet ihr, Kinder, bewahrt 
jet vor allen Ddiejen Dingen“! das Gegenjtiice bilden. 
το ὦ ergiebt jich dDabet — wenitg{ten3 im zweiten und 
Dritten Whjchnitte — feine derartige dDurchfichtige Ordnung 
und Planmapigteit de$ Siindenverzeichniffes, wie fie vom 
Verfaffer der Cntfheidung nach den bisherigen Feftftel- 
{ungen vermutthet werden mag. Yur jfteht bet Wort- 
reihen nach {τ der vorliegenden nichts entgegen, |patere 
Umnftellungen und Cinfchiebungen anzgunehmen, durch wel- 
che die urjpritnglide Wnlage und Ordnung im GCinzelnen 
unfenntlich geworden, ganz abgefehen von der Mtdglich- 
feit, Dag icon der BVerfaffer deS Sitten}piegelS auch diejer 
Sheil jeiner VBorlage durch Cinjchaltungen aus dem Bar- 
nabagbriefe gedndert Hat. Gm Ganzen aber erjcheint e8 
unbedenflich, in dem mitgetheilten Lerte de3 Sittenfpiegels 
Die Bejdreibung de TXodesweges zu erblicden, welche 
urfpriinglic) in der Cntfcheidung ftand und anderiveitig 
ung nicht erhalten geblieben iff. 

Wir miiffen ἐδ un8 nun verjagen, Hier auf die 
sablreiden Brwijdenbemertungen πάθεν eingugehen, dure) 
welche der Verfafjer, der gegen Ende deS dritten Sabr- 


Hunderts in Syrien gelebt. haben. mag μὴν jeine Ochrift- 


1) Nach der Schlupformel der Darftellung de3 Todesiweges 
haben die apoft. Conftit. (VII, c, 19—21, p. 205, 15— p. 206, 5) 


430 Krawugty, 


belejenheit und UnterrichtSerfahrung, wie er fie anjdjei- 
nend beim Gebrauche der EntiGhetdung gejammelt, auf 
mehrfac) anjprechende Weije befundet. Ytur Cins fei 
noch beigefiigt. Dieje Bwijchenbemerfungen lLafjen fich als 
jolche bei einer Vergleichung mit dem ert der Kirchen- 
ordnung faft durch weg ohne Weiteres erfennen; und da 
augleic) die WAhweichungen vom Wortlaut der Kirdhen- 
ordnung grofenteils erficjtlider Magen uur auf dem 
Streben πα einer dentlicheren und gefalligeren Darjtels 
{ung beruben, erjeint der Verjuch nicht allzugewant, 
ben verloren gegangenen Cert der Ent- 
‘fdheidung jelbft aus den beiden nod τοῖς: 


noch eine Warnung, fich nicht von der rechten Grommigfett abbringen 
au fajjen, jowie eine Gelehrung tiber die Crlaubtheit des Fleifch- 
genuffeS mit Wusnahme des Gihenopferfleijdhes, ehe der ziveite 
Haupttheil deS Buches (c. 22 ss.) beginnt. C8 ergiebt fich aus 
Dtejer fowie aus den beiden fchon erivabnten plantwidrigen Bei- 
fligungen mit hoher Wabhricheinlichfeit, dak dev Berfaffer des fie- 
benten Buches dev apojt. Conftit. den vorliegenden Sitten{piegel 
bereits vorgefunden und in fein Gammeltverf nur aufgenommen 
hat. Die Cntftehungszeit deS Sittenfpiegels aber riict auf dieje 
Weife, wenn die WAbfajfung de fiebenten Buches twegen des darin 
enthaltenen Glaubensbefenninijfes (c. 41) mit Dregy, a. a0. ©. 
103, in den Anfang des vierten Sabrhunderts verfebt wird, nod) 
weiter in’S ἔτ ἢ. WAlterthum zuriic, objdon der Wbftand, welder 
δυο der Cntjdheidung de3 Petrus und dem GSittenfpiegel aus 
dev lehrhaften Cntfaltung de8 behandelten Unterricdhtsftoffeds οὐ {ὦ 
ift, εἶπε evhebliche Zurticdverlegung widerrath. WS Vaterland des 
Sittenfptegels wird Syrien angunehmen fein, da derjelbe ungeachtet 
jeiner Venubung dev wobhlgeordneten Cntfdheidung weniger τ 
fireng und fnapp ordnenden Geift, als durch reide Schriftbelejenheit 
und breite Darjtellung fich fenngeichnet, wie fie den fyrifchen Kircjen- 
jchrviftitellern eigen war und auch in den tibrigen Beftandtheilen 
der apoft. Conftit. hervortritt, fiir deren Heimat Syrien gilt. Bgl. 
νέο, a a ὦ. GS. 90 und 159. 


Ueber da8 altfirdliche Untervidtsbuch. 431] 


hHandenen Searbeitungen defjelben wie- 
Derherzuftellen. 

Die unbeholfenere und jchmuctlojere Bearbeitung — 

Ὁ. 1. Die Darftellung des Lebensweges in der Kirden- 

_ordnung — bildet hierfiix notwendig δίς Grundlage. 9105 
aujehen ijt dabei nach den bisherigen Feltitellungen von 
Dev Winleitung der RKivchenorvdnung, von den Cingangs- 
und Schlupipritchen und von den eingejchalteten Wpoftel- 
amen, indem Dieje Beftandtheile οὐ] der Kirchenordnung 
und nicht jdon der Enticheidung angehiren. Der iibrig 
bleibende Lert Hat wenigftens an einer Stelle eine gripere 
oiterpolation erfahren, e8 ift dies der Wbjchnitt iiber 
Den madnnlicen und den weibliden Damon. Uuferdem 
find nur nod) einige minder bedeutende Cinjdiebungen 
wabhrjcheintich. 

Wn gweiter Stelle ijt jodann regelmabiq die mit 
griperer jchriftitellerijher Begabung und Freiheit aus- 
gefiihrte Bearbeitung im Gittenfpiegel zu Rate gu ziehen, 
wobet Abrweichungen, welche fich leicht aus der Cigen- 
titmlichfeit δε Gearbeiters erflaren Laffen, nicht in’3 Ge- 
wicht fallen diirfen, fallS fie nicht gradezu den Vert der 
Rirdhenorduung auch auf ihre Weije beftatigen, die wirt- 
lich itbereinftimmenden Gage aber um jo geftcherter εὑ: 
jeinen, als offenbar beide Bearbeitungen unabhangig 
von einander entftanden find. Denn dag der Verfafjer 
Des Sittenjptegels nicht die KirchenordDnung, jondern un- 
mittelbar die Cntfdheidung fiir εἶπε WArbeit benugt hat, 
wurde mit Berufung auf die der Kirhenordnung eigen: 
tiimlidjen Bugaben, welche im Gittenfpiegel jehlen, be- 
rett3 gejagt. Cbenjo mup aber auch die Unabhangigfeit 
Der Kirdhenordnung vom GSittenjpiegel angenommen wer- 


432 Krawubty, 


Det, Da in Lebterem ungweifelhaft ete Stitce, welche 
Die Kirdenordnung bietet, wie der durch Clemens von 
WAlerandrien bezeugte WAusfpruc), fehlen und iiberhaupt 
Das Kunftftiicé, ans dem Lert des SittenjpiegelS mit jei- 
ner 3um Leil verjchobenen Gliederung die wobhlgegliederte 
Darftellung de3 Lebensweges, wie fie in der Rirchenord- 
nung fich findet, herguftellen, dem BVerfafjer der lebteren 
Schrift nicht leicht zugetraut werden fann. 

Ml Hilfsquellen dritter Ordnung find endlich der 
Barnabasbrief, deffen Lert vom Berfaffer der (δ π  ἀ εὶς 
Dung vielfach wortlich beibehalten wurde, fowie die mehr- 
erwabnten furzen Wngaben de3 Rufinus und de3 Clemens 
von Wlerandrien 3u nennen und geeigneten Oris zu vere 
werten 1). 

Wir erhalten auf dieje Weije den Hier folgenden 
Wortlaut. 


1) Gin wichtiges Hilfsmittel zur Wiederherftellung des Tertes 
der τη δείδια twiirde der von Pitra verglicene Codex Otto- 
bonianus gr. 408 der Vaticanijchen Bibliothef (1. c. p. 75) mit 
feinent Auszuge aus der RKirchhenordnung bieten, wenn angenoninen 
werden finnte, daf der Cpitomator die Cntjcheidung felbjt gefannt 
und nicht vielmehr neben der Rirchenordnung nur nod) den Sitten- 
fpiegel und den Barnabasbrief oder auch nur eine interpolierte 
Wbjehrift der Kivchenordnung bet jeiner Arbeit verwendet hat. Doc 
[pricht gegen dieje Annahme foon die Rollenvertheilung, welche 
dev Spitomator ungeadhtet feines Strebens nach Kiirze beibehalt, 
wie er Denn aud) nur den LebenSiveg darjtellt. S. die AWbweidungen 
und Gigenbeiten deS Codex Ottob., an den betreffenden Stellen 
unter dem Dert notiert, bei sai lye. TV, p. 95° ss: 


Darn 


f bemee * 
Ω͂ 
γι 


i 2 oe 
Weal Ve >} ἠδ 
} ope Ave μοι 


Li i. stig a 
Ore ealere’ (are, ar 


hott ἰὰλ 


ἣ ΓΈ ' 


Ueber das altfirchliche Untervichtsbuch. | 433 
i | 
Die zwei Wege oder dic Entfdeidung des Petrus. 


Der Litel ift iiberliefert durch Rujinus, Comment. 
in symb. apost. ὁ. 38. Der Codex Sangerm. und die 
alten Dructe geben: ,,dte Ent[heidung nach Petrus.” 
Die Angabe deS Hieronymus De viris illustr. c. 1. Lat 
betde VeSarten 3211. 

δ jind z;wet Wege, der eine des Lez 
benSund Derandre δε Tovdes. Aber 
Dev Unterjdied ift groR z;wifden den 
zwei Wegen. Denn Der Weg des Le- 
θεπὸ einerjeits ijt Diejfer. 

So die Kirchenordnung. aft wortlic) itbereinjtimmend, 
aber mit erweiterndDen ZBujdgen, auch der Sittenfpiegel. 

Dujfollft lieben den Gott, der dig 
gemadt Hat, aus Deinem ganzen Herzen 
undoverberrliden den, Der did erloft 
Hatvom Lode; 

Diejer Wortlaut der Ko. fttmmt mehr mit dem Barz 
nabagbriefe al8 mit dem Sjp. itberein, welch Lebterer 
fich dev biblijcjen Wortfaffung (Deut. 6, 5) nabert; der 
Anjehlug der Entjheidung an den Barnabasbrief hat die 
gropere Wahrjdheinlichfeit fiir jich. — Wuferdem jest die 
Ko. dem Gebote der Gottesliebe ein ,,Grften3" vor, jo- 
wie Dem der Machftenliebe ein ,Bweitens”, und lapt dort 
nod) den Sak: ,,was ein erftes Gebot ijt" jowie hier — 
unmittelbar nach der pofitiven Faffung de3 Gebotes — 
Die Worte: ,,was εἶπ grweites Gebot ift, an welchen 
Stiicen das ganze Gejeb Hangt und die PBropheten” fol, 
gen. Dieje lebterven Bugaben, welche fic) aus Meare. 12 


434 | RKrawubty, 


30 π. 31 und Matth. 22, 37—40 erfldren, find fiir 
unecht angufehen, da fie Den Blan der Entidhetdung, neben 
das Gebot der Gottesliebe alsbald das der Ytachftenliebe 
und 3war in Der pofitiven Wortfalfung jowohl als auch 
in der negativen Umfchreibung Hinzuftellen, verdunfeln. 
— Der Shp. jagt, der Weg deF Vebens fet diejer, den 
auc) das Gejeh (Deut. 6, 5) vorjchreibe: 3 lieben 
Gott den Herrvn aus ganzem Herzen und aus ganger 
Geele αἵδ᾽ den einen und etnzigen, meben welchem ein 
anderer nicht ift, und den Machften wie fich jelbjt; und 
alles, was du nicht willft, dab e3 dir gefchehe, Ddiejes 
jollft du nicht dDem Wndern thun.” Hiernach jcheint dte 
Verbindung der drei Gage urjpritnglich auch nicht durch 
»Srftens” und ,Brweitens“, jondern durch das einfache 
πὸ“ gejcebhen zu fein. 
und du jollft lieben deinen Nad ften 
wie Dic) felbft und alles, was du nit 
willft, Dag eS dir gefmebe, jollft du 
aud nidtdem Andernthun. — 
Der Shp. fligt Hier nod) παῷ Lob. 4, 15 den Sag 
bei: ,, Das ift, was du haffeft, jollft du nicht dem Wndern 
thin,“ — vielleicht, um die in der heiligen Schrift nicht 
vorfommende negative Umjdreibung ,,Ule3, was dw nicht 
willft, u. ἢ. w." biblijdh gu vechtfertigen, oder auch υἱεῖς 
leicht, um fie noch mehr 211 verdentlicen. Wher iim erfte- 
ren σα wire ftatt , Das ijt” vielmehr , Denn e3 heift" 
au jchreiben gerwefeit; im anderen Galle entfteht die Gon- 
Derbarfeit, dap das gur Verdeutlidhung Beigefiigte un- 
dDeutlicger ift als das gu Erfldrende. Der Sak hat alfo 
wohl aud) im Shp. nicht fchon anfangs geftanden. Gm 
Uebrigen 1. die vorige Bwijchenbemerfung. 


Ueber das altfivehliche Unterrvichtshud. 435 


Du jollft nidt toten, nidt ehebre- 
men, nidt Huren, nidht Gift mijden, 
nidmttiten ein Kind δῦ ὦ Whtreibung, 
nidt nad der Geburt eS umbringen; 

SGtatt diejes Lertes bringt dev Sjp., wie jcjon frither 
erwahnt worden, Wtord, Chebruch, RKnabenjchandung, 
Hureret und Diebftah! nach einander zur Sprade, iwo- 
nad) in einer Cinjdjaltung nocd) Zauberei, Giftmijdung 
und beide Arten des KindeSmordes jowte die Begierden 
nach fremden Giitern erwahut werden. Der Wortlaut 
der Ko., welder die allerdings jdéon im Barnabasbriefe 
genannte Knabenjdandung iibergeht und dafiir in Ver- 
bindung mit Chebrucd) und Hurerei an Giftmijdung und 
Kindesmord evinnert, ohne das Diebjtahlsverbot nachfol- 
gen gu lafjen, Diirjte jedoch die urjprituglice Lertgeftalt 
jein, tndem gerade die Veangelhaftigteit derjelben den Vers 
fajjer de$ Gittenjptegels 3u jeiner andern Darftellung, 
die als Verbefjerung mitjammt der nachfolgenden Cin- 
jehaltung auch m die athiopijde Ueberjegung hintiber- 
genontnen jowie vom Cpitomator im Codex Ottob. bez 
nugt wurde, veranlapt haben fann. 
Du follft nidt falfhes Beugni8 ge- 
ben, niht SGdh@mahreden Fihren und 
nidt Shlimmes nadtragen, jollit nidt 
Doppeljinnig jeinundaud nidt dop- 
pelziingig, denn eine GdGhlinge des 
Podesift die Doppelzingigfeit; Deine 
Rede foll nidt eitel und nidt liigen- 
Haft jein; 
om Sip. findet fic) an Diejer Stelle falt mwértlich 
Derjelbe Fert, dent nur biblijcje Begriindungen beigefiigt 


436 Krawupty, 


find und der Gab: ,,Du follft nicht Τα] ὦ jdworen“ 
vorausgeht. Lektere Erweiterung Hat aud) der Codex 
Ottob. 
Du jollft nidt hHabjidtig jetn und nidt 
rduberijh und nidt FBeudlerijdh und 
nidt bdosartig und nidht hodmiitig und 
nigtannehmen einen jhlimmen Rat ge- 
gen deinen Racdjten. 
Auch hier ftimmt der Sip., abgefehen von jeinen 
biblijchen Zufdben, Glied fitr Glied mit der Ko. iiberein, 
bis auf die lebte Vorjchrift, welche der Sip. auf die Ge- 
fabr bejchranft, bet Gericht gum Verderben eines Yeie- 
Deren aus Miicdficht auf einen Hohen mitguwirfen. Der 
obige Lert, welchen auch jchon der Barnabasbrief hat, 
ijt ohne Bweifel vorguziehen. 
Du jollft nicht Hajjen irgend einen Ween- 
jen, jondern Die etnen zuredtwetjfen, 
Dev andern Did) erbarmen, fiir andere 
beten, wteder andere lieben mehr als 
Deine Seele. — 
Der Shp. fagt: ,,Ou jollft nicht Hafjen ivgend einen 
Menjden“ und fiigt ftatt des Bolgenden nur noch die 
beiden Schriftitellen bet: ,,Burechtweijen magit du deinen 
Bruder und nicht jeinetwegen eine Siinde auf dich ποῦς 
men” (Lev. 19, 17) und ,,Weije gurecht einen Weijen 
und er wird dich lieben” (Prov. 9, 8). Die WAuslafjung 
Der lbrigen Lextglteder ift jedoch augenjcheinlich eine ab- 
jicjtlide, da diefelben, wie fchon gezeigt worden, vom 
Verfaffer de3 Sip. bald anfang3 eingehend behandelt 
worden find. 
Mein Kind, fliehe vor allem Bijfen 


Ueber das alttirchlice Unterrichtsbuch. 437 


und vor allem, was ihm ahnlid ift! 

Werde nidGt zornig: Denn Der Born fithrt 

zum Weorde; werde nidt netdijdh und 

nidt zanfijdh und nidt leiden|daftlid: 

Denn Daraus πέρι toro. 
Die Ro. Hat Hier die erfte, furze Cinjdaltung bez 
siiglich Des Bornteufels. Der Sip. lat bereits an diejer 
Stelle wie auch fpdter regelmabig (nur die Schlupbformel 
DeS TodeSweges ausgenommen) die Wnrede hinweg, die 
jedoch durd) Glemens von Wlerandrien gefichert ift. Gm 
Ubrigen beftitigt der Sip. den vorliegenden Lert theils 
wirtlid), theilS andentungsweife. Die athiopifcje Uber- 
jebung der Ro. Πα! noch bet: neque etiam sis invidus 
aut morosus neque amator belli, quoniam hoc malum 
affert exitum. 

Kind, werde nidt giertg: Denn Die Gier 

fibrt zur Hureret und jhleppt die Men- 

jen zu thr. 
Sdon Bidel!, a. a. Ὁ. ©. 113, bemerft, dab in 
Der Wiener Handjchrift das Wort ξαυτήν, welches die 
Druce geben, 3u Wnfang unleferlich gejdhrieben ift. (sm 
Codex Ottob. feblt der betreffende Sak ganz.) 38 darf 
aljo wohl αὐτήν fiir ξαυτήν gelejen werden, da die Gier 
im Meenfcen doch nicht den Weenjchen au fich ziehen 
fann. Die folgenden Sage der Ko. bilden die gripere 
CinjGaltung iiber den weibliden und den manntlicden 
Damon. Der Shp. befchrantt fich hier gleich dem vor- 
jtehenden Lexrte auf wenige Worte: ,,Werde nicht gierig 
nad) bidjen Dingen: denn du wirft in ein Unmafh von 
Siinden gefiihrt werden.“ 

Kind, werde nit ein Menjd, der jhanod- 


Theol, Quartaljdrift. 1882. Heft IL. 29 


438 _ Krawugty, 


fide Reden fihrt, nod auch ein jolder, 
Der Die Wugen Hod trdgt: Denn Daraus 
entitehfen Ehebredereten. 
Der Sip. fagt: ,,Werde nicht ein Menjch, der jhandlide 
Reden fiihrt, noc) auch ein jolcher, der die Augen 
jchieBen abt, und nicht trunfjidtiq: denn Daraus entftehen 
Hurereien und Chebrechereien." 
Kind, werde nidt etn Bogelflugjdhauer, 
indem e3 zum Gibendienfte fihrt, aud 
nidt ein Bauberfanger und nidt ein Cr- 
forjder der Bahl- und Raumgeheit πιπἰ}} 6 
und night ein Retnigungsmetfter und wolle 
Davon nidt wijjen nod Horen: denn aus 
dem allen entftehen Gibendienereien. 
Der Sip. lagt die Schlupworte: ,,und wolle davon 
nicht wiffen” u. 7. w. aus oder vielmehr umj)chreibt die- 
jelben durch den Gag: οὐδὲ wad non μάϑημα πονηρόν" 
ταῦτα γὰρ πάντα καὶ ὁ νόμος ἀπεῖπεν, Wodurch zugleid) 
bas Verbot der Ko.: μὴ γίνου... μαϑηματικός, wofiir 
Bidell a. a. O. S. 115 ,,Sterndeuter” jagt, feine richtige 
Deutung erhilt. Im UWbrigen beftatigt der Sfp. unge- 
achtet jeiner freien Lertbehandlung den obigen Wortlant 
Der Ro. 
Rind, werde nidt ein LMitgner, tndem 
Die Litge zum Diebftahl fihrt, und nidt 
ein geldgieriger und nist ein rum 
jitdhtiger Mtenjdh: denn aus dem allen 
entitehen Diebereien. 
Die erfte diefer Warnungen jammt ihrer Begriindung 
jeblt im Sfp., vielleicht weil derjelbe (abweichend von 
Der So.) fchon friiher vom Diebftahl ansfiihrlich geredet 


! 


Ueber das altfirchliche Untervichtsbuch. 439 


und dabet auch die Viige in Verbindung mit dem Dieb- 
ftahl erwahnt hat (c. 2, p. 199, 20). Dagegen tritt an 
Diefer Stelle Das Reugnip de Clemens von Wlerandrien fiir 
Die (δ θεὶς des vorlieqenden ertes ein. Die beiden 
anderen Warnungen, von Bufjagen begleitet, werden jedoch 
auch im Sittenjpiegel Hier mitgetheilt. 
Rind, werde πίε murrjinnig, indem 
e$ zur Sdmahrede fihrt, und nist ane 
mapend und nicdt iibeldenfend: denn aus 
Diejem allenentitehHen OGh@mahreden. Sei 
vielmehr janftmitthig, indDem die Ganft 
mitthigendDasS Himmelreid erben. Werde 
fangmitthig, barmberzig, arglos und 
rubig, gut und behutjam und gitternd 
Hinjictlid der Worte, die Ou gehdbrt 
Haft, Ou jollft dich nidt jelbft erhihen 
und nidt gejftatten deiner Geele Ber- 
wegenheit und nidmtanbdngen mit deiner 
Geele den Hodgeftellten, jondern mit 
den Geredten und Hemitthigen umgehen. 
Die did treffendDen Schidungen 1011) 
Dufirgut hHinnehmen, wijjend, dDapohne 
Gott nidhis gejdhteht. 
Cine Vergleichung diejes Lertes, mit defjen lebten 
Sage wieder die Benugung de3 Barnabasbriefes beginnt, - 
und de entiprechenden Wbjchnittes im Sittenfpiegel ge- 
ftattet feinen Sweifel an der CEchtheit des erjteren. Die 
Ubereinftimmung der Ko. und de8 Sfp. ift auch bier 
griptentheils eine wortlicje. Mur an einer Stelle ergiebt 
fic) injofern ein bemerfenSwertherer Unterjchied, als nad) 
Dem Lert: ,,Werde langmiithig, barmberziq" im der Ko. 
29 * 


440 Krawubty, 


noch die Worte: ,,friedfertig, rein im Herzen von allem 
Bojen” folgen, tm Sfp. dagegen fehlen. Da fich nun 
Diefelben nach den Ermahnungen zur Sanftmuth und 
Barmberzigkeit im Hinblid auf die Seligpreijungen der 
BVergpredigt (Metatth. 5, 5—9) vow felbjt παῦε Legten und 
Deshalb feicht erjt bet der Wbfafjung der Ko. in Die 
Schilderung de$ LebenSweges Hineingefommen fein tonnen, 
Der Sjp. Dagegen bei jeiner BVorliebe fiir Schrifthenugung 
fauim eine dDerartige Der Schrift entnommene Ermahnung, 
Die fich in feiner Vorlage fand, iiberqangen hat, find die 
betreffenden Worte tm obigen Lert αἵ wabhricheinlich 7 
unedht weggelajjen worden. 
Kind, dDenjenigen, welder yu dir 
δα Wort Gottes redet und Dir ein 
WriturhHeber des Lebens wird und dir 
Das Siegel im Herrn verlieh, jollft 
Dulieben wie Deinen Wugapfel, jein 
gedenfen bet Madht und bet Tage, ihn 
ehHren wie Den Herrn: Denn woher dte 
Witrde Des Herrnin der Rede mitge- 
theilt wird, Dajelbjtift der Herr. Du 
jollft aber aufjuden εἰπε Gegenwart 
taglidh und die Ubrigen, Damit du 
Did an ihren Worten erquideft, in- 
Demduifbnenanbhdngft: Denn αἵ ein 
Heitliger jollft du durd Heilige ge- 
Heiligt werden. 
Der Sfp. jagt ftatt: ,,den follft du Leben wie DdDeinen 
Augapfel”, welden Wusodruc auch Der Barnabagsbrief 
hat, nitcjterner: ,,den folljt du verberrliden.” erner 
iibergeht diejelbe Bearbeitung einerjeits die Worte: ,,der 


Weber das altfireliche Unterridtsbuch. 441 


Dir ein Mtiturheber de3 Lebens wird und dir das Siegel 
im Herrn verlieh”, ertveitert aber anbderfeits den Sag: 
ign follft du ehren wie den Herrn”, indem fie Ddafiir 
jehreibt: du follft ifn ehren nicht als einen Urheber des 
Dajeins, jondern αἵδ᾽ einen, der dir ein Befdrderer des 
Wohlfeins wird.” Mean erfieht Hieraus, dab der Verfaffer 
des Sfp. den obigen Wortlaut vor fic) gehabt, aber fiir 
aut tiberjdwenglic&) angejehen und deshalb mit Wbficht ge- 
dndert Hat. Wuferdem lantet bet ihm auch die Begriin- 
dung ftatt: ὅϑεν yao 7 χκυριότης λαλεῖται, ἐχεῖ κύριός 
ἐστιν, fablicjer: ὅπου γὰρ 7 περὶ ϑεοῦ διδασκαλία, ἐκεῖ 
ὁ ϑεὸς πάρεστιν. Endlich flirgt der Sfp. den gweiten 
Theil der Vorjchrift ab, indem ev nur fagt: , Du follft 
tiglic) aufjuchen die Gegenwart der Heiligen, Damit du 
Dic) an ihren Worten erquicfeft.” Der ungelenfe Sas 
bau der BVorlage mag diefe Kitrgung veranlapt haben. 
— Anderjeits enthalt die Ko. Hier den jcjon bejprochenen 
und als wahrideinlich unecht dargejtellten Bujak: ,,Du 
jollft ihn ehren, je nachdem du ἐδ im Stande bift, mit 
Deinem Schweif und mit dev Wrbeit deiner Hande u. 7. ἢ." 
Du follft niht Spaltungen verur- 
fadhen, vielmehr zum Griecden bringen 
Die Strettenden; Dufollft gereht εἰ ὦ: 
ten; Du jollft nit perjonlide Rice 
jit nehmen beim Buredhtweitjen wegen 
eines gehltrittes: denn night Reid. 
thum gilt bei Dem Herrn, denn nidt 
Wilrden ziehter vor, aud night nit 
Shinheit, jondern Gleig*heit Aller 
hHerrjht bet thm. 
Der Sip. dient bet aller Breiheit der Bearbeitung 


= Ἔα... 


442 RKrawubey, 


sundch{t den Hier mitgetheilten Vorjchriften durchweg zur 
Beftdtiquug, verweift dann aber ftatt der vorliegenden 
Beqriindung auf eine Anzahl biblijcher Beifpiele. Cin 
Bweifel an der Echtheit der betreffenden Worte erjcheint 
gleichwohl micht angezeigt, δὰ dem Berfaffer des Sfp. 
jon der rhythmtjde Klang de8 Vertes minder genehm 
jein fonnte. Mit dem grweiten ,, denn" beginnt namlich 
anjcheinend ein Dichterijches Citat, defjen Versbau fid) 
durch Weglaffung de$ Worihens ἐστέ und Umftellung 
De$ vorangehenden und Des nachfolgenden Wortes leicht 
wiedergewinnen Lapt. Der handjchriftliche Lert Lautet: 
ov γὰρ αξίας mooxolver, οὐδὲ καλλος ὠφελεῖ, αλλὰ 
ἰσότης ἐστὶ πάντων παρ᾽ αὐτῷ. Das ift, in Verfe 
gebracht: 
ov yao ἀξίας προχρίνει, 
οὐδὲ χάλλος ὠφελεῖ, 
ἀλλὰ πάντων ἰσότης παρ᾽ αὐτῷ. 
Nun ent}pricht aber die Benugung eines derartigen Lertes 
eher der Geiftesart des Verfaffers der Cnt}cheidung, der 
auch jonft einen gewifjen RHythmus der Darftellung - 
liebt, αἵ dem unbeholfenen Autor der Ko. Daher die 
obige Lextgeftalt beibehalten. 
on Detnem Gebet follft du nidt zwet- 
feln, 0b e8 jein wird oder nit: fei 
nigmt ein Pienjfd, der jeine Hande 
ausftredt gum Empfangen, zum Geben 
aber jie einzteht Wenn Du Haft, jo 
gieb vermittelft dDetner Hande zur 
Sihne Deiner Gitnden. Ou jollft vid 
nidt bejinnen zum Geben und forlft 
nidtmurren, wenn Du giebjt: Denn du 


Ueber das αν ὥς Untervidtsbuch. 443 


wirft erfennen, wer Der gute Qohner- 
fiatter ift, Ou forlft did nit abwen- 
Den vom Beditrftigen, jondern Gee 
meinjdaft gewahren in allen Dingen 
Deinem Bruder und nidts eigen nen- 
nen: Denn wenn thrim Unfterbliden 
Genojjen fetid, um wie viel mehr in 
Den vergdngliden Dingen. 
Das Wort gute” vor Vobnerftatter [Ὁ im Shp., 
findet fich jedoch fcon im Barnabasbriefe. (διαί des 
lebten Gages, welcher die Pflicht de3 menfchlichen Weit- 
gefiihls auf die GlaubenSgenofjen 3u_ bejchrvanfen 
|Geint, jagt der Sfp. gutreffender: dent gemeinjam 
wurde Das Empfangen von Gott allen Meenjcjen zube- 
reitet”. itr die (δι θεῖς obigen LerteSs jpricht inde 
gleichfalls die Ubereinftimmung mit dem obengenannten 
Briefe. Im UWbrigen fehren die Vorfdriften der Ko. im 
Shp. faft Wort fiir Wort wieder. 
Diejes ift Der Weg des Lebens, inner- 
hHalb deffen (δὲδ Vebens) gefunden 21 
werden euch bejdieden jein mige dDurd 
Sefum CHhriftum unjfern Herrn. — 
©Go der Shp. nach einem laingeren, grogentheils dem 
Barnabasbriefe entnommenen Nachtrage. Gn. der Ko. 
folgt an Ddiejer Stelle bereits die durch die Wnlage de3 
Ganzen geforderte Schlugkermahnung de3 Bartholomaus. 
Die Worte: ,,Diejes ijt der Weg de$ Lebens” fonnen 
jedoch in der Cnticheidung, da hier bald noch der Weg 
DeS Loves gefchildert werden follte, faum gefehlt haben. 
Und auch die Wunjchformel diirfte nicht erft dem Sip., 
jondern jdjon der vorgenannten Schrift angehiren, da 


444 Krawubdy, 


aud) die Schilderung des TodeSweges mit einem Wunjdhe 
jchlieBt, der wegen der Wnrede ,Kinder", die fonft im 
Sjp. nicht vorfommt, wahriheinlich aus der Cnt}chetdung 
ftammt. 

Der Weg des Lodes aber ift an ὦ {πὶ 
men Handlungen erfennbar: denn anf 
bemfelben finbdet jic) Unfenntnif Gottes 
und Cinfihrung vieler Gitter, — 

Die einige Lexrtquelle iff Hier der Sjp., eine erwet- 
ternde Wusfchmiicung der Vorlage von Seiten de3 lebteren 
{aft fich jedoch nicht annehmen. | 
Durd weldhe Meordthaten (entite hen), 
Ehebredhereien, Hurereien, Weeineide, 
gejebwidrige Begierden, Diebereten, 
Gigendienereien, Baubereten, Wift- 
mitfdereien, Maubereten, faljde Beuge 
niffe, Heudeleien, Doppelherzigfeiten, 
Betrug, Uberhebung, Bosheit, Anmafung, 
Habjudt, jmanolidhe Rede, Ciferjudt, 
wredbheit, Hodmuth, Hoffart, Sdheulojig- 
feit, Berfolgung der Guten, gegen die 
Wahrheit Haf, zur Viige Viebe, Unfennt 
nip Der Geredtigfett: — 
Das GSitndenvergzeichnip der Cnticheidung diivfte hier 
durd) Cinjchiebungen und Umftellungen mehrfach erweitert 
und verwirrt worden jein. Bur Wiederherftellung der 
urjpritngliden Zertgeftalt fehlt jedoch, da die Conjtit. 
unjere eingige Ouelle find, jeder Anhalt. 
Denn die Bollbringer dDiejer Dinge 
hangen night dem Guten an nod aud 
Dem geredhten Geridte, find wadhjam 


Ueber da8 altfirdliche Untervichtsbud). 445 


nidt zum Guten, jondern zum Θ ὦ Τί πὶ 
men, von Denen weitabift Ganftmuth 
und Geduld, das Falj[dheliebend, jagend 
nad Belohnung, niht bemitleidendden 
Wrmen, fic nist anftrengend wegen 
eines Belafteten, nihterfennend den, 
Der jie gemadt, Moirder von Kindern, 
RBerftirer des Gebildes Gottes, fig 
abwendendvom Veditrftigen, δ εἰ πε 
Deteyrerden, Berddhier δὲν Urmern, tu 
Willem find ha ft. 

Die apolt. Conftit. wiederholen hier faft Wort fiir Wort 

De Lert de3 Barnabasbriefes. Ob fie Hierin auch mit 

Der Cntjheidung iibereinftimmen, Lapt fich nicht mehr 

fejtftellen. 

Moicdtet ihr bewahrt fein, Kinder, 

vor allen dDiejen Dingen! — 

S. die Bemerfung zur Wunfehformel, mit welcher die 

Darjtellung de3 LebenSweges fchlieft. ! 


2. 


Biographijdhe Motizen θεν Guijeppe VYinlatejta. 


Bon W. Miirnberger. 


Don Guijeppe Malatefta ijt ein Gejchichtsfchreiber, 
Defjen Werke murals Manujeripte erhalten find, wahrend 
ἔθου. feine SebenSverhiltniffe fo gut wie nichts befannt 
ift. Dte Bibliotheca Vallicellana in Stom bewahrt 
feinen litevarijden Machlak, auf welchen Lammer in den 
Analecta Romana ©. 77. 80. 81, Melematum Rom. 
Mantissa ©. 21. und 243 aufmerffam madte. Gm 
Giornale Napol. (Nuova serie 1879, I, 3. 5. 354) brachte 
Gaetano Capaffo einige Motizen ither Mealatejta’s Gee 
jhichte des Benesianijchen Ynterdict3, welch’ lebtere auch 
Moris Brojch befaunt ijt, der in feiner Gefchichte des 
RKirchenftaates (1 Bod. Gotha 1880. ©. 360. not. 1.) von 
ihrem Wutor jagt: ,Der Berfafjer fchreibt immer tm 
papiftijden Sinne und war im Vertrauen de$ rodmtijden 
Hofes, vielleicht be Papftes jelbft.” 

Von bejonderem Werth fiir Mealatefta’s Btographie 
{ind die Codices Vallicellani M. 8 und M. 9 = Car- 
teggio del Ser. G. Malatesta concernente per la mag- 


τ pen/ G οι: (/L¢4h 


I. 
Abhandlungen. 


1 


Ueber die jog. Swalfapoftellehre, ihre hanptfichlidjten 
Oruellen und ive erjte Xufnahme. 


Bon Dr.” Krawugety. 


1, Vorbemerfung. 


Bei dent Mangel an fidheren Machricten iiber die 
in der {|| τ genannte neuverdffentlidte Schrift des 
νει Wterthums 1) erjcheint die Frage nad) den 


1) . den Wortlaut derjelben oben Ὁ. 383 ff. — Cujebius 
(Hd. E. IIT, 26 ed. Limmer.) erwahnt ,die fog. Lehren der 
Apoftel”, δα πα δ (ΒΡ. fest. 39) eine beim Katechumenen- 
unterrvicht fdon von den Vatern verwendete ,,jog. Lehre der Wpo- 
ftel”. Der Unnahme, dak Hhiermit unfere ,,Lehre der δ] Wpo- 
ftel” gemeint jet, ftehen jedoch ernfte Schwierigfeiten entgegen. 
Denn zur Berjchiedenheit der Titel, welche fiir fic alletn aller- 
Dings nicht entjcheidend jein wiirde, fommt noch einenthetls die 
aus PBjeudo-e«CyHyprian (De aleatoribus ὁ. 4)  erfichtliche 
Rertverjchiedenheit der Doctrinae apostolorum und der 8101 


35 * 


548 Krawugcty, 


Nuellen over Vorlagen, welche der Verfaffer zu 
jeiner Ausarbeitung benugt hat, an erfter Stelle von 
Widhtigkeit. Die ausfiihrlichfte Crovterung diefer Frage 
hat bi jebt Wd. Harnad 1) geliefert. Das Ergebnis 
feiner Unterjuchung lautet: ,Der Verfaffer der Adayn 
hat benugt 1) das 91. V., 2) δα Evangelium, 3) den 
Barnabasbrief, 4) den Hirten de Hermas; er hat aber 
auperdem δ wabricheinlih Stitde aus der alten 
Briefliteratur gefannt; unfider bleibt, mie fich zeigen 
wird, ob er bereits Kenntnis von dem Cvangelium nach 
Sohannes befetjen hat 2).” Gm Folgenden jeten mun 
sunichft einige Umftdnde hervorgehoben, welde darauf 
{cdlieBen Laffen, dap der Verfaffer der Bwdlfapoftellehre 
— abgejehen von der gelegentliden Benugung de3 alten 
Teftamentes, deS Barnabasbriefes und de8 Hirten fo- 
wie eines Cvangeliums, weldes wabhriceinlich das 
Evangelium secundum (duodecim) apostolos der Jaza- 


apoftellehre jowie anderntheils die fharfe Unfechtung hingu, welde 
der Gnhalt dev Bwoslfapojtellehre nach Const. Ap. VII, 27 jdon 
vor den Tagen deS Athanajius erfahren hat (S. τὺ. u.). — Wm 
bedeutjamften erjdien anfdnglic) der Umijtand, dak in der Sti- 
Gometrie des MicephHorus dev Umfang der Apojtellehre 
auf 200 Sticen angegeben wird, unjere Bwilfapoftellehre aber 
in der Handfchrift 203 Beilen ausfiillt. Aber aud) diejer Beweis 
fiir die Ydentitat beider Schriften ijt evfdiittert, feitbem Wd. Har- 
nad (vo. Gebhardt und Harnad, Texte und Unterjudungen, 
II, 1 Leipz. 1884. Proleg. (56, 13 f.) dDavauf hingewiefen hat, δαβ 
die Brwblfapoftellehre c. 10700 Buchftaben, ,,d. i., den Stichos 
au 35 Buchftaben gerednet, rund 300 Sticen”, zahlt, wonad 
Die Angabe des Nicephorus eher auf die anjcheinendé flirzer ρος 
faften Doctrinae apostolorum 4u begiehen fein bdiirfte. 

1) 31. a. O. S. 63—88. 

2) A. a. Ὁ. Θ. 65. 


Ueber die fog. Brwilfapoftellehre. 549 


radev und Cbioniten wart), — jeiner Arbeit haupt- 
jachlic) swet Schriften κι Grunde gelegt hat, ndmlid 


1) δ. Harnad jeblieft feine einfcdlagige Unterjucdung a. 
a. Ὁ. ©. 79 mit den Worten: ,,Soweit das Material Sdliiffe 
qulagt, jceint jomit das Urtheil geficert, daB der Verfaffer der 
Adayy unter dem ,,Evangelium deS Herrn” ein aus dem Lucag- 
Cv. bereichertes Ntatthaus-Cvangelium vovransgefebt und benugt 
Hat. «1 das vielleicht das Ev. sec. Aegyptios? τὺ dieje Hy- 
potheje laffen fich manche Griinde anfithren.” Welches dieje Griinde 
jeten, wird un jedoch nicht mitgetheilt. ὅς das Hebraer-Cvange- 
lium der MNazarder und Cbtoniten (erwahnt u. a. von Hier υ- 
nymus ad Matth. XII, 13 mit den Worten: in evangelio, 
quo utuntur Nazaraei et Ebionitae, quod nuper in graecum 
de hebraeo sermone transtulimus et quod vocatur a plerisque 
Matthaei authenticum, und de vir. illustr. c. 2: evangelium 
quoque, quod appellatur secundum Hebraeos et a me nuper 
in graecum latinumque sermonem translatum est, quo et 
Origenes saepe utitur; f. Hilgenfeld, Nov. Test. extr. 
can. IV, ed. 2, p. 5 sqq.) fprechen folgende WUnzeichen: a) Das- 
jelbe ftimimte voriwiegend mit unferem Ntatthaus-Cvangelium tiber- 
ein, wie auch der Evangelientert der Bwolfapoftellehre. b) Dag- 
jelbe rechnete ἐδ au den griften Verbrechen, einen Ntitbruder zu be- 
triiben (in evangelio, jdreibt Hieronymus ad Hzech. XVIII, 
7, quod juxta Hebraeos Nazaraei legere consueverunt, inter 
maxima ponitur crimina, qui fratris sui spiritum contrista- 
verit), und erflart jo die unbiblijche (gegen Matth. XVIII, 15—17 
verftpfende) Strenge der Bwodlfapoftellehre gegen die Verleber der 
MNachjtenliebe (XV, 85 der Harnac’jdhen VBerszahlung). c) Dags- 
—jelbe fiihrte bereits zur Beit des Origenes (vergl. die obige 
UWngabe de3 Hieronymus de vir. illustr. ο, 2, Origenes 
Hom. I in Luc. ad I, 1: ecclesia quatuor habet evangelia, 
haereses plurima, e quibus quoddam scribitur secundum 
Aegyptios, alind juxta duodecim apostolos, und Hieron ye 
mus ady. Pelagianos III, 2: in evangelio juxta Hebraeos, 
quod chaldaeo quidem sermone, sed hebraicis literis scriptum 
est , quo utuntur usque hodie Nazareni, secundum apostolos 
sive, ut plerique autumant, juxta Matthaeum, bet Hil gen- 
feld 1. 6. p. 8, 19, 42) auch den Vitel: Evangelium Domini 
secundum duodecim apostolos und gehirt fomit wohl denjelben 


550 Krawubcety, 


1) cine fdhon Lange vor den Tagen de3 Cle 
men3 von Alerandrien entftandene Darz 
ftelLung der zeit Wege des LCebens und des 
Todes und 2) eine nod unter den Mad wir- 
fungen des Unterganges Ferujalems ἐπί: 
ftandene antizebtionitijme BWernoronung. 
Bum Sdhluk jodann und einigermapen zur Beftatiquig 
Der vorhergehenden Darlegungen mige die Aufuahme, 
welche dex Bwolfapoftellehre bet ihrem erften συ] εἴπει 
in firdhliden Rreijen ιν Dbheil geworden tft, ein wenig 
πάθεν beleuchtet werden. 


2. Die Darftellung δὲν zwei Wege. 


1. Sn der jog. apoft. KRirdhenoronung %) 
findet fic) eine Befdhreibung des Lebensweges, iwelde 
qrokenthetls τοὐν mit der Daritellung defjelben Gegen- 
ftandes in der Bwdlfapoftellehre iibeveinftimmt. Schon 
Bryennios nimmt oeshalb an, dap die Bwolfapl. Hier 
der erfigenannten Schrift alg Quelle gedient habe. Die — 
Uebereinjtimmung der hetden Verte fann inde3 dod) 


Kreijfen an, in welchen unfere Διδαχὴ Κυρίου διὰ τῶν δώδεχα 
ἀποστόλων τοῖς ἔϑνεσιν ent{tanden ift. Bgl. UWpg. 5, 42. 

1) ©. itber diejelbe Vib, Theol. Quartal-Sqgrift, © 
1882, ©. 362 ff. Werichtigend jet bei diejem WAnlag 21: S. 364 
bemerft, dab die Lagarde-Hilgenfeld’jche Vermuthung, in 
Der apoft. Ro. jet ein dem siweiten Gahrhundert angehsriges Bitch- 
fein namen8 »Duae viae vel Judicium Petri« (jf. Hilgenfeld, 
Nov. Test. extr. can. IV, ed. 1, 1866, Zitelblatt und p. 3, 93 
und 95; vgl. ed. 2, 1884, Titelblatt und p. 3, 90 und 92) 
wiedergefunden, bereits mehrere Yahre vor mir von Wd. Hare 
nad in Bweifel gegogen und fon in deffen Ausgabe δε Bare 
nabasbriefes vom Yahre 1878 (jf. P. XLVI und G. 73) beanftandet 
worden iff. S. aud TH. Bahn, Fgnatius v. Unt. (1873), S. 583. 


Ueber die jog. Brwilfapojtellehre. 551 


auch von der beiderjettigen Benugung einer dritten die 
awet Wege behandelnden Sdvift hervithren und bierfiir 
fprechen mehr oder minder ent}deidend folgende Um- 
ftande. 

a) Beim Gebot der Gottesliebe bringt die Ro. ἢ 
Den Bujak: ,und verherrliden den, der did 
οὐδ hat vom Dode.” Dieje Worte de3 Barna- 
basbriefes (XIX, 2) find allerdings miglider Weife 
erft bom Verfajjer der Ko. Hingugefiigt, objdon der 
idriftitellerifden Befahiqung de Lebteren durch eine 
jolche Wunnahme vielleicht zu viel zugetraut wird 5). Ste 
fonnen aber auch dev Vorlage angehirt haben und vom 
Verfalfer dev Bwilfapl. mit Whfidht ausgemerst worden 
jeit, Da dte Lebtere burdweg pon einer bereits erfolgten 


Grldfung jcweigt, ja felbft in ihven euchariftijden Gee 
beten trog 1. Gor. 11, 26 den Tod de3 Herrn zu vevr- 


1) Hilgenfeld, 1, 6. ed. 2 p, 112. 

2) Bryennio$s, Adayy τῶν dadexa ἀποστόλων, Ct. 1883, 
σελ. EG, fchretbt von der Ro.: οἸΣυντέτακται δέ, ὡς ἔμοι ye 
δοχεῖ, ov μετὰ σπουδῆς (ἄσκοπον γὰρ ὅλως ἔοικε τὸ ἔργον), 
ἀλλὰ παιδιᾶς χάριν μᾶλλον. Naheres j. Theol Qu.- Sadr. 
1882, Ὁ. 384—386, 395—399, 407 f., 410—418. — ϑ πὸ in dem 
unmittelbar vorhergehenden Gage: ἡ μὲν γὰρ ὁδὸς τῆς ζωῆς 
ἐστὶν αὕτη hat die Ro. einen befferen Text, αἵδ᾽ die Bwolfapl., 
welder ον ὦ erjt auf Rechnung de3 Verfafjers der Ko. fommt; 
ebenfo verhalt e3 fic) mit dem Bujab dev Ko.: ove δὲ δλεήσεις 
au Brwolfapl. II, 7. — Uebrigens Hat der Verfaljer der Ko. dod 
an obiger Stelle einen eigenen Bujak angebracht. 8 find die 
Worte: ἥτις ἐστὶν ἐντολὴ πρώτη. Aber diejelben verrathen ihren 
Urjprung fofort dadurdh, δαβ fie nach dem vorausgegangenen 
πρῶτον tiberfliijjig find, wogegen der Hintweis anf die Wobhlthat 
Der Erldjung nach den auf die Schdpfung Begug nehmenden 
Worten: ,Du follft lieben den Gott, der did gee 
πιὰ hat” fehr awecdmapig ijt. 


552 Krawubety, 


fiinden unterlapt Θ. c. IX und X. Und dieje lebtere 
Aunahmte empfiehlt jich deshalb als die wahrjdheinlidere, 
weil der Berfaffer der Bwolfapl. gerade an Ddiefer 
Stelle fic einer auffalligen Kitrze und Cilfertigheit be- 
fletBigt, vermige welcher er nicht blop das Gebot der 
Nachftenliebe mit den furgen Worten: ον εἶπεν Na dz 
ften wie did felb ft" (ohne Wiederholung de3 Beit- 
wortes: ,du follft lieben”) wiedergiebt, jondern 
auch das der Gottesliebe (ohne, wie die Ko., den Buz 
fab: , aus deinem ganzen Herzen” beizufiigen) 
auf die Worte befdranft: ,ou jollft lieben den 
Gott, der dich gemadht hat”, objchon der Bufag 
im Gebot der Mdchitenltebe ,wie did) jelbft” aud 
bet dem der Gotteslicbe eine Mapbeftimmung wie (αὶ ὃ 
Deinem ganzen Herzen” verlangte oder ebenfalls 
hatte wegbleiben follen. 

b) Die Anfprache besiiglich des ftandigen Seeliorners 
der Gemeinde Lautet in der Ko.: ,,Kind, Ddenjenigen, 
welder zu div das Wort Gottes vredet und dir ein 
Miturheber des Lebens wird und dir das 
Giegel im Herrn verlieh, follft du lieben 
wie deinen Wugaypfel; du jollit aber gedenfen 
jeiner bet Nacht und bet Tage, follft ihn ehren wie den 
Herr: denn wobher die Wiirde des Herrn ertint, dafelbft 
ijt der Herr ἢ)... Statt deffen fagt die Rwilfapl. (IV, 
1) fiirgzer: ,, Mein Kind, desjenigen, welcher zu dir das 
Wort Gottes redet, follft du gedenfen bet Nacht und 
bet Dage; du jollft aber ihn ehren wie den Herrn: denn 
woher die Witrde de Herrn ertint, dafelbft ift der 


1 Hilgenfeld, 1. c.? p.114 


Ueber die fog. Bwilfapoftellehre. 553 


Herr.” Auch hier lapt fich σις Beides oenlen, fo- 
wohl dag der Verfatjer der Ko. jeine Vorlage εὐ! durd) 
Die fragliden Buldbe erweitert habe, um wicht jeoweden, 
welder fic) zum Verfiindiger des gdttlicden Wortes auf- 
wirft, deShalb jdon der treueften Wnhanglicfeit fiir 
wlirdig 3u οὐξ τοι, alS auch dap die in der Bwolfapl. 
fehlenden Worie αὐ ὦ unterdrviidt worden feten, werl 
dev BVerfatjer diefer Schrift in Wnjehung der Seelforge 
in der That abjonderliche Wege geht, indem er 3. 35. 
vorjdreibt, dag jeder , Brophet", welcher in einer Gez 
meinde [ὦ niederzulajjen witnjdt und durch fein Vetragen 
fic) αἵδ᾽ uneigenntigig und wabrhaft ertwiejen hat, als 
Hobherpriefter der Chilftenheit mit den gefewlicen Grft- 
lingSipenden unterhalten werde (c. XI und XITI): einer 
jolden Denlweife fonnte die Crinnerung an denjenigen, 
welcher nicht erft feit geftern oder heut in der Gemeinde 
lehrt, jondern den Glaubigen einft die Gacramente der 
Wiedergeburt gejpendet hat und feitdem ihr ftandiger 
Miturheber des LVebens tft, doch nicht recht zujagen. ον 
die Uripriinglichfett de$ vorliegenden TevieS dev Ko. 
jpridt aber moch dev WUmitand, dag diejer Legtere anz 
jcheinend auch bereits im jog. Gitten}ptegel (Const. 
Ap. VIL, 9) mit beriicfichtigt wird und jomit wohl nicht 
erft vom Berfatfer der Ko. ftammt. 

c) Die Darjtelung de3 Lebensweges enthalt jowohl 
in dev Ko. al8 in der Bwolfapl. einen Wh) chnitt, welder 
Π ὦ durch eine anffallig μη ες Gliederung und Verzie- 
rung augszeicnet. (δ find die fieben (oder Το 8) Wn- 
jprachen oder Mabhniworte, welche mit der Anrede ,, Mein 
Rind" eingeleitet und durch fedsmalige (in dev Zwalfaypl., 
welche die beiden ἴον furzen Anjprachen bez. der Unterfdh- 


- 
᾿" eee 
, bre) χα 


554. Krawubety, 


Heit in cette zujammenszicht *), nur durch fiinfmalige) 
Wiederholung der Wnrede deutlich vow einander unter- 
jchieden werden 5. Sn dtefem Wbfchnitt erjcheint nun 
nicht blop die Wnzabhl der WAnfprachen als tymbolijd be- 
Deutjam mit Whyicht gewahlt, foudern auch die dev Glieder, 
aus welchen die einzelnen Anjprachen beftehen, peinlich 
(oder jollen wir Lieber fagen: ἔοι ὦ Ὁ) berechnet. We- 
nigftens enthalt die erfte Wniprache — nach einer eit- 
leitenden Grmahuung allgemeinen Suhalts — ἐφ εἰ 
(oder, οἷς Cinleitung hingugezahlt, drei), οἷο zweite und 
Dritte je εἰ πὸ *), Dte Hierte und fitnfte je εἰ und Die 
fechfte und ftebente (anjceinend) je zwei mal zwei 
Musfihrungen. Und nicht bloB der Anfang jeder neuen 
Wunfprache wird jprachlic) — durch die regelmapig wieder- 
Febrende Wunrede-— gefennzeidnet, jondern anc das 
Cnde jeder etnzelnen Wusfiihrung oder Crmahuung — 
durch regelmafig angehdngte Begriindungs)age, 
welche bejonders bet der VBelprechung dev negativen 
Pflidtenreihe refrainartig flingen, — bemerflid gemacht. 
Dieje Begritndungs}age Lauten nach der Orduung der 
fieben Wnjprachen, wenn wir zundcdjt nur den Wortlaut 
dev Swolfapl. berticjichtigen: 


1) Dap erft der Verfajjer der Ko. Hier eine WAnvrede einge- 
jchaltet habe, οὐρα weil etn neuer Redner auftritt, ift, da fpater 


60 δῇ Kephas ohne Anrede beginnt, minder wahrjcheinlid), als δαβ 
‘ei-fop- Die Bwslfapl. Hier von ihrer Vorlage abgewicen jet. 


2). Bwilfapl? ΠῚ Leite) on ber απ ΠΣ 
118—116. 

8) Sv nach dem Lerte, welcher der K.O. gu Grunde liegt; 
Die KR.O. jelbft jchaltet Hier ihre Bemerfungen itber den tweibliden 
Lujtdamon ein. 


Ueber die jog. Brwilfapoftellehre. 555 


1: 

1. ,denn e3 fithrt δεν Born 2. denn aus dem Wen ent- 
aur Morodthat; ftehen Morodthaten; 
ΤΙ 1Π. 

8. Denes Πίητι die Gier zur 4. Denn aus dem Allen ent- 

11 Ὁ Ὁ cries ftehen Chebrit he; 
ΤΥ} Ve 
5. indem e83um Gigwen- 7. indem die Liige zum Dicb- 
το π jie ΠῚ ftahlt fiihrt ; 
6. Denn aus dem Allen ent- ὃ, Denn anus dem Alen ente- 
fteht GObendten ft *); fteHen Die bft ah le; 
ὙΠ VII. 
9. indemes zur afterung 18, denn woher die Witrde des 
fithrt ; Herrvn ertint, dajelbjt {ΠῚ der 


Herr ; 
10. Denn ans dem Allen ent- 14, — 
ftehen Qafterungen; 


. tndem δίς Sanftmiitigen 15. denn du wirft erfahren, wer 
Die Erde erben tverden; Der gute Lohnerftatter ijt; 

12. wifjend ἢ, daB obne 16. Denn wenn ihr im Uniterb- 

Gott nichts gejchieht; lichen Genoffen εἰ, um wie 


piel mehr in den vergang- 
lichen Dingen.” — 


1) Wie der Todesweg dev Brwiolfapl. (V, 1) zeigt, wird der 
GoHkendienft hier nicht mit dem Chebruch, jondern mit dem Dieb- 
{taht und Raub (vgl. Col. 8, 5 und MNtatth. 6, 24) in eine Reihe 
geftellt: gleichwie Dem Ehebruchverbote werden demnach aud) dem 
Diebjtahlverbote awet Anjpraden gugetheilt, nur mit dem Unter- 
{hied, δαβ die Bahl der Ermahnungen und BVegriindungs|age, 
ent}prechend dem planmapigen Wnwachfen de Umfanges der Wn- 
jpraden, fich nun bereits verdpoppelt. 

2) Die Ko. bietet auch hier (vgl. 2, 4, 8 und 10) die Mehr- 
gahl (ἐχ γὰρ τούτων ἁπάντων εἰδωλολατρεῖαι γεννῶνται), wie 
ohne Btwerfel der urjpriinglide Text gelantet hat. 

9) Der Wusdruck ijt, wie fo vieleS Andere, wisrtlich aus dem 
Lichtwege de$ Barnabasbriefes heriibergenommen und feitet ohne 
Bweifel ebenfalls einen Segriindungsjak (,,deun ohne Gott gejdieht 
nichts”) ein. 


, 
\ a 


556 Krawugety, 


(δ᾽ ift unverfennbar, dap der Verfafjer diejer Spriicde 
den beftimmten Blan verfolgt, den Wbichlup eines jeden 
Theiles feiner Wnjprachen durch einen mehr oder minder 
refrainartigen Begriindungsjak auch jpradlid) hervorzu- 
heben. Dtefer Plan findet fic) liicenlos durdhgefiihrt bis 
sur Legten Wnfprace, wo die erjte Crmahnung (den Ver- 
Eiindiger deS αὐ οι Wortes wie den Herrn zu ehren) 
nod vegelred)t mit dem unter 18, angefithrten Begriin- 
dungsjabe fcbliebt, Dann die an zweiter Stelle folgende 
Crmahnung zum (tdglicen, friedfertigen, tm Urtheil vor- 
ficytigen und im Burechtweifen unpartetifden) Berfehr 
mit den , Hetligen” deS tiblicden Begriindungsjabes ἐπ: 
bebrt, die an Ddritter und vierter Stelle fid) anveihenden 
Crmahnungen zum bereitwilligen Wlmofenfpenden und 
zur Wnerfennung de3 nur bejchranften Wnrechtes auf 
Brivateigenthum aber wieder planmagbig dte unter 15. und 
16. mitgetheilten Begriindungs}age bet ὦ haben. (δ 
unterliegt mithin faum einem Bwetfel, dag der Lert der 
Bwolfapl. hier Uticlenhaft ijt. Die fehlenden Vertworte 
aber enthalt die Ro., in welcher wir bei der Crmahnung 
beatiglich de3 Verfehrs mit den Glaubigen neben einer 
qroperen Suterpolation 7) dem abjdliependen Begriin- 

1) Hilgenfeld, l. c.? p. 115, 2—8. Wir lejen hier 4u- 
πὰ]: χολλώμενος γὰρ ἁγίοις ἁγιασϑήσῃ, was mit den unmittel- 
bar borbergehenden Worten (Aufjuchen jolljt du τἄρ) die Het- 
ligett, ,,damit dDu did) an ihren Reden εὐ α αἱ ἃ ε ft”) nicht recht 
im Cinflange fteht und deshalb wohl erft vom Verfaffer der Ko. 
ftammt. 2W{8dann fehrt die Nede gum Verkiinder des οὐ! ἐπ 
Wortes guriic, um denjelben al8 wiirdig de3 Lohnes und der Vet- 
fteuer yu feinem Unterhalt darguftellen: auch diefer Pafjus ift 
jchwerlich urjpriinglic. Wollte man aber auch entgegengefepter 


Meinung fein und demgemaf die ftebente Anfprace nicht αἵδ᾽ vier- 
gliedrig, jondern al8 fechSgliedrig betracjten, jo twlivde dDadurd) 


Ueber die fog. Bwslfapoftellehre. 557 


Dungsjage begegnen: ,denn nimt δὲ εἰ τ πὶ gilt 
bet Dem Herrn, denn nicht Wiirden sieht er 
por, aud nit gt nidht Sdhinheit, fondern Gleid- 
hett aller berr{mt bet ihm”, — ein Lert, welder 
nad) der Wufforderung, beim Burechtweijen nicht auf dte 
Perjon zu jehen, inhaltlich in den Bujammenbhang beftens 
papt, aber vielleicht wegen de rhythmijden Klanges jeiner 
Worte, die einem Gedicdht entnommen jceinen, dem Ver- 
fafjer der Bwolfapl. nicht zujagte. Will man deshalb 
nicht Leihthin annehmen, dak δίς fraglicen Worte gleich- 
wohl nur ourd das Verjehen eines Wbichreibers zufallig 
aus dem Lerte der Bwilfapl. verjcdwunden feien, fo wird 
fic) der Schlup nicht umgebhen Laffen, dag die Bwoslfapl. 
fowwobl alS auc) die Ko. wahrjdeinlidh auf einer 
dlteren Darftellung der szivei Wege des Lebens und des 
Toes fuben, deren Wortlaut weder in der einen nod in 
Der anderen Schrift, da aud in der Ko. mandhe Sake, 
wie namentlid) der Podesweg, vermipt tverden, uns voll: 
ftdndig erhalten ift 4). 

2. Die Darftellung de LCebensweges in der 
Rwilfapl. befteht, wie auf Grund der voranftehenden 
Nuseinanderjepung fowte dreter Ueberjdriften ungiweifel- 


haft erjdeint, aus fiinf Whjdhnitten, πάπα 1) aus den. 


Der obige Machiveis, Daf die Bwslfapl. den urjpriingliden Wortlaut 
Der fieben WAnjpracen nict mehr vollftindig enthalt, doch feine 
Beeintradhtigung erletden. 

1) Daf der Verjaffer der Ko. nicht auch die Bmslfapl. gefannt 
habe, [01 jedoch mit dem Obigen nicht gejagt fein. Bur Vertheie 
lung de3 Tertes an die redend anftretenden Apoftel in der Ko. 
fann vielmehr gerade der Titel der Bwolfapl. angeregt haben und 
dDergl. m. Dod ijt die leptere nicht als Ouelle der Mo. anguc 
jeben, 


558 Krawugety, 


beiden Geboten der Gottes- und Nadfitenlicbe, 
pon welchen das Lebtere εὐ in pofitiver und dann in 
negativer Formulirung mitgetheilt wird (1, 2), 2) aus 
einer Rethe von Vollfommenbheitsjpritchen oder Ydeal- 
porjdriften des Cvangeliums und der chriftliden Broz 
phetie δορί der Feindesliebe und der Arglofigteit in 
Crduldung von Gewaltthat und Ausbeutung (1, 3—6), 
3) aus einer tiberfidhtlidjen Wufzahlung νι εὐ Cut- 
haltungs- und Gethdtigungspflidten, welche zunddft 
an die Verbote dev ziveiten mofaijden Geljebestafel fic 
anjdlieben und jomit eine Wuslequng zur negativen 
Wortfafjung de3 Gebotes der Madftenlie be Hilden 
(II, 2—6, val. I, 2°), zulegt aber pofitive Bethatiquugen 
der MNadftenliebe (mit Cinfdhlug der Feindesliebe) 
porjdreiben und dabet bis zur vollfommenften und 
jelbftlofeften Opferliebe fic) aufjchwingen (II, 7), 4) aus 
den vorhin bejprocenen, Hier in der Sech3zahl απ]: 
tretenden Wnjpracen, welche, ahnlich wie der vorige 
δ θ᾽ πὶ, erjt negative und dann pofitive Pflidten der 
Nad [Ὁ ὁ πὶ ὁ be einjdarfen, abet aber die Cuthaltungs- 
pflidyten von vornherein auf οἷο jchlimmen Herzensrequngen 
und Wufdnge des BHfen ausdehnen und desgleichen den 
Bethatiquurgspflidten ein weiteres Geltungsgebiet, unter 
bejonderer Veriicjichtigung de3 Verfehrs mit den Glau- 
bensqenofjen, vorzeicuen, ja aud) dariiber noch binaus- 
gehend einerjetts die der erjten mojaijden Gejebestafel 
ent}prechenden Verbote deS Gigendienftes und dev Vafte- 
rung (II, 4 und 6) jowie anderfetts die Bflichten der 
findliden Ergebung in Gottes Willen und der danfbaren 
AWuhanglidfeit an den Verktindiger deS gvttliden Wortes 
(ΠΠ, 10 und IV, 1) in Grinnerung bringen und injofern 


Ueber die jog. Bwolfapoftellehre. 559 


auc) eine (negatin und pofitiv lautende) Wuslegung de3 
Gebotes der Gottesliebe (val. I, 2”) enthalten, und 
5) aus einer Reihe von Crmahnungen religidjen Snhalts, 
ndmlich bezitglic) dev gotteSftirdtigen Kindererziehung 
und entipredenden Behandlung der driftliden Knedhte 
und Midgde, de3 Gebhorjams der legteren gegen ihre 
Herrn um Gottes Willen und der jduldigen Aufrictig- 
feit und τοις gegen Gott (IV, 9—14). 

Vergleidht man nun dtefe fiinf Whjdhnitte unter- / 
einander, jo {pringt dev engere Bujammenhang de8 
Dritten und vierten WAbjdnittes won jelbft in die 
Mugen, da betde erjt negative und dann politive Vor- 
{hriften bringen und bet ihren negativen Vorjdhriften die 
defalogijdhen Verbote: ,,ou jollft nicht tddten” u. 7. τὸ. 
au Grunde legen. Desgleiden lapt fich eine πάθετε Bu- 
fammengebirigfeit des dritten Wbjdhnittes mit dem 
erften gar nicht verfennen, indem die negativen und 
pofitiven Vorjdriften de8 ovitten Wbjdhnittes zu der 
pofitiven und negativen Formulivung de$ Gebotes der 
Nachftenliebe, mit welder der erjte Wbjchnitt jchliept, 
Die unmittelbare Wuslegung -bilden. Wber auch der 
vierte Wbhjchnitt fieht mit dem erften in einer nadheren 
indaltlicen Verbindung und nicht blos in einem mittel- 
baren, Durch feine Gleichformigfeit mit dem dritten Wh- 
{chuitte Hergeftellten Sujammenhange, indem, wie der 
Dritte Wbfdnitt im Wnjdlup an dite lebten ODefalogsworte 
das Gebot der Nadftenliebe ervldutert, ebenjo der 
pierte Whjchnitt durd) feine Bezugnahme auf die erjften 
Defalogsworte auch nocd das Gebot der Gottesliche 
verdeutlidt. Diefe dret Whi cdnitte erweijen fic jo- 
mit von Vornbherein als ein einbheitlices und in ich 


560 Krawugery, 


abgejdhloffenes Ganges, in weldhem der angemefjene 
Fort}dhritt der Geoanfen von felbft hervortritt. 
Dagegen fallt ἐδ nicht leiht, in jammtliden 
fiinf 301 dHhuitten einen einbheitliden Blan und Ge- 
Danfengang zu finden, objchon der Verfajjer uns dadurch 
zu Hilfe fommt, dap ev den drei Legten Wbj}dnitten die 
gemeinjame UUeberjdrift giebt: Δευτέρα δὲ ἐντολὴ τῆς 
διδαχῆς (11. 1), den sweiten 3.07  αϑὸν mit den 
Worten: Τούτων δὲ τῶν λόγων ἡ διδαχή ἐστιν αὕτη" 
(I, 8) und den evften mit den Worten: Ἢ μὲν οὖν 
ὁδὸς τῆς ζωῆς ἐστιν αὕτη" (I, 2) einlettet. Sm Sinne 
de3 Verfaffers befteht die Darftellung de3 Lebensweges — 
hiernad) aus dret Haupttheilen, von welchen dev dvritte 
allein dvet Whjchnitte im fich begreift ἢ. Wher welcher 
Zujammenbang verbindet dieje Hauptthetle? τῷ ἐπε 
nins *) fpridht zwei Vermuthungen aus. Nad) der 
einen waren die zivet (tm erften Hauptthetle furz an- 
gefithrten) Gebote der Gottes: und Macftenltebe nad) 
einander Gegenftand des ziwetten und des dritten Haupt: 
theiles; nad) Der anderen unterjdteden fitch die beiden 
legten Hauptthetle wie die zwet Sage: ,, Ghue das Gute” 
und ,, Mteide das Boje“. Diefe zweite Vermuthung it 
jedoch augen{deinlich unhaltbar, da im dvitten, vierten 


1) Sm Umfange find dieje dret Haupttheile erflarlicher Weije 
einander nicht gleich: der erfte ὁ (bei Hilgenfeld 1. c.? 
p. 94 sqq.) nicht mehr αἵ 3 Druckzeilen, der aiweite bereits 18 
oder 8 mal 6 und der dritte gar 56 oder nocd) iiber 3 mal 18 
Druczeilen. Doch entjpricht diefes Wnfdhwellen des Umfanges 
Der {chon oben gefenngecichneten Ntanier, in welder die 7 {πε 
jprachen abgefaft find und welder wir auch im Todeswege wieder 
begegnen werden. 

2) 2. a. Ὁ. 6. 10. 


Ueber die fog. Bwilfapoftellefre. 561 


und flinften der oben befdhriebenen Whidhnitte ebenjowohl! 
Bethatiguigs- als Cuihaltungspflidten eingejddarft wer- 
den. Uber auch die erftgenanunte Vermuthung, wonach — 
Der siwette Haupttheil die Forderungen der Gotteslieke 
Und Dev Dvitte die Der Nachftenliebe einlaplider darjtellen 
fol, widerlegt fich von jelbjt, da die Pflichten der Gottes- 
fiebe, wie die obige Subaltsangabe zeigt, auch) im dvitten 
Haupttheile und zwar hier weit offener αἵδ᾽ im siweiten 
ux Darftellung gelangen. Und diefer Llebtere Umftand 
ent}cheidet auc) gegen die Wufftellungen Wd. Harnad’3?), 
τοοπα der dritte Haupttheil die Madjtenliebe, dev sweite 
aber die Gottesliebe zum Gegenftande hatte, indem die Vor- 
{chriften de8 zweiten Hauptthetles, die Feinde zu lieben, dem 
Bujdlagenden auch die andere Wange zu τοίου! und jedem 
Bittenden unterjcdiedslos zu geben (1, 3—6), cine Welt- 
entjagung verlangten, ,die gar nicht mehr durd) den Ge- 
fihtspuntt de3 Dienftes am NMachjten motivirt werden” 
founte und die tm Urdriftenihum in oer Ghat (neben dem 
Gebet) fiir ,, die divefte und wejentlide Bethatiqung der 
Gotteslicbe” angelehen worden ware. Denn mit dem- 
jelben Rechte mug dann aud) im dvitten Gaupttheile eine 
MAuslegung de3 Gebotes der Gottesliebe gefunden werden, 
Da wns Hier Voridriften begegnen wie, den MNadchften 
unter Umftdnden mehr zu lieben αἴ die eigene Seele 
(II, 7), jehlimme Crlebniffe als gute Hingunehmen, da 
ohne Gott ja dod) Nichts gejdhehe (III, 10), den Ber: 
Fiindiger deS gdttliden Wortes mie den Herrn 3u ehren 
(IV, 1), gegenitber einem Gennjjen der unvergdngliden 
Giiter Michts jetn eigen zu nennen (IV, 8), dem Ge- 


1) WM. a. Ὁ. 6. 45 ἢ. 
Theol. Quartalferift. 1884. Heft IV. 36 


562 Krawubety, 


bieter αἵδ᾽ einem Wbbilde Gottes mit Scheu und Furdt 
su gehorden (IV, 11), alles Gottmipfallige zu hafjen 
(IV, 12) und Sffentlich (in der Gemeinde) feine Ueber- 
tretungen 3u befennen, um nidt mit bifem Gewiffen gum 
Gebet hingutreten (IV, 14). Diefe Vorjdriften fjesen 
nicht weniger, al die Crmabhnungen zur Feindesliebe 
{owie zur willfahrigen Unbilderduldung und Milothatig- 
feit, eine wirffame, Lebendige Gottesliebe voraus; ja 
dieje Vorjdriften weijen auf dieje ihre Vorausfebung 
wiederholt und unzweideutig bin, mogegen im zweiten 
Haupttheil nur ein einziges Mal (zur Cmypfehlung der 
unterjdhiedslofen Milothatigkett) auf Gott Bezug genome 
men wird (I, 5), daneben aber allerhand Hinweile fic 
hervordrdngen, die eher an die Selbjtlicbe al3 an die 
Gottesliebe denfen lajjen, wie dak der Ghrijt ja dod 
mehr Nacftenliebe zeigen folle als der Heide und dak 
er algdann feinen Feind haben merde (I, 3), dap er 
vollfommen fein werde, wenn ev Dem Zuldlagenden auch 
die andere Wange reide (1, 4), dak er Weggenommenes 
ja doch nicht wiederzuerlangen im Stande jet, wesbhalb 
er ἐδ auch nicht evft zurticffordern folle (1, 4), und daf 
ex feinerjett3 feine Schuld habe, wenn er gemap dem 
Gebote allen Bittenden und darunter auch folden, die 
nicht beditrftiq find, gebe (I, 5). Mach dev Auffaffung 
Harnad’s miifte zwijchen dem sweiten und dvitten Haupt 
theile doc) mindeftens das umgefehbrte Verhaltnis in der 
Motivierung der Vorjchriften obwalten. Wie die Dinge 
fliegen, wird fid) deshalb feine der obigen Vermuthungen 
liber Den Bujammenhang der drei Haupttheile fefthalten 
laffen, vielmehr dice Whficht des Verfaffers dahin gegangen 
fein, 3u den beiden Hauptgeboten de3 Chriftenthums nod 


Ueber die jog. Bwilfapoftellehre. 563 


διρεῖ Jeihen von Vemerfungen hinguzufiigen, von weldhen 
bie “erjtere jofort in volltinigen Werfungen die Hohe der 
Hriftlicen Bollfommenheit bejdjreiben, die lebtere aber 
— unter nur gelegentlidem Cinfdluf von Vollfommenz | 
heitslehren — mit den negativen und pofitiven Grund- | 
forderungen Der Nach ftenliebe beginnen und von da bis 
zur Cinfharfung der widhtigiten veligtojen Pflidten fort- 
fbreiten jollte. — 

Cine lidhtvolle Wroronung und ohne Weiteres an- 
lprechende Darftellung liegt jedoch hiernady in der Bwolfapl. 
nicht vor und wird um jo weniger anzuerfennen fein, 
al3 dev Verfaljer, dev feine volltinigen Volfommenhetts- 
lehren bintendrein jelbjt bedentlid) gefunden 3u haben 
jdeint, nad dem formliden Sdlug des Todesweges 
nod) einen Jachtrag bringt, in weldhem die vorausge- 
Jdhictten hohen Wnforderungen dadurd abgejdhwacht twer- 
den, δαβ man thun foll, was man finne, wenn man 
“das ganze Gur Vollfommenheit dienende) Sod de3 Herrn 
au tragen nicht im Stande fet (VI, 2). Um jo bedeut- 
jamer erjceint ἐδ, dap in dev ap. Ko. von den oben 
unterfdiedenen fiinf Ubjchuitten der zweite (die Vollfom: 
menheitsjpritche) und der fitnfte (dite Sprtiche nad) den 
fieben Wnjpracen) feblen und dap die dvet iibrigen 
Wbicdynitte, wie {chon oben gezetgt murde, namentlid) 
wenn auch der Legte derjelben die aus der Bwilfap. 
heriiberzunehmende Ueberfchrift, die ihm urjpriinglid 
angehirt haben diivjte, gurticerbalt*), von jelbft etn 


1) Fand der Verfaffer der Bwolfapl. in jeiner Quelle die 3 
in der Ko. benubten Wbjdjuitte mit je einer Ueberfdjrift vor, fo 
begreift e8 fich leicjt, Daf ev nach Erweiterung der Borlage Zu 
8 Haupttheilen mit 5 WAbjdhnitten die vorgefundenen 3 Ueberfdriften 

ὁ0 


564. ται βοΐ, 


liberfichtlides, wobhlgenordnetes und in ὦ abgefchloffenes 
Ganzes bilden. Bm Wnfange — unter der Ueberfchrift : 
der Weg de Lebens einerjeits ift diefer” — δίς vier 
Spriidhe der Gottes- und Madftenliebe, im Sdhlupab- 
jcnitte — παῷ den Worten: ,,Cin zweites Gebheip der 
Belehrung aber iftY — odie fiteben funfivoll aufgebauten 
Anfprachen, in welchen die BPflichten der Macdhjten= und 
Gottesliebe ihre ausfiihrlidjte Darftellung erhalten, und 
dazwijdhen — mit der Cinleitung: ,3u diefen Worten 
aber ift die Velehrung dieje” — ein Whichnitt?), welder 
ἢ eben fo unmittelbar und offenfundig an den Wnfangs- 
abjdnitt anjdlieBt, wie er den Grunodvig zu den wetteren 
, Uusfiihiungen de Sdhlubabfcnittes bildet: — follte ein 
“foldhes Zufammentreffen und innerftes 2ufammenftimmen 
der in der Ro. itberlieferten Lerte einer alteren Schrift 
δια, follte e3 ein Meifterftiice δὲδ fonft fo ungeldicten 
Verfajfers der Ko. fein, dev hier mit gliidlidem Griff 
aus feiner Vorlage dte den Zujammenjdhlug der Gheile 
ftdrenden Wbfdhnitte ausgejcdhieden hatte? Oder ift e8 
nidt vielmehr unvergletdlic) mahrideinlider, dab diejer 
Bujammenjdhlup oer Dheile von dvitter Hand herrithit 
und fdon einer Quelle eigen tar, aus welder die 
Verfaffer der Swoblfapl. und der Ko. beiderfetts gefdhipft 
haben? — 


den 3 Haupttheilen vorjebte und fomit die Zweite und dritte von 
ihren urjpriinglichen Stellen entfernte. 

1) Derjelbe ift in der Ko. liicenhajt mitgetheilt und aus der 
Bwilfapl. au ergdnzen, da twenigften8 das Verbot des Diebftahls 
aiwifchen dem de8 Ehebruches und dem de8 falfchen Beugnifjes ur- 
{priinglich faum gefehlt hat. — Ym Umfange wadhjen die 3 3105 
{chnitte tibrigen8 ahnlich an (mit 83—4, 10—11 und 35—37 Drud- 
acilen), wie die 3 Haupttheile der Bwilfapl. (jf. o.). 


Ueber die jog. Bwolfapoftellehre. 565 


3. Betvadten wir nod) den in der Brwolfapl. mit- 
getheilten Todesweg, jo zeigt dicle Darftelung im 
Vergleid) mit der in dev Bwslfapl. vorausgehenden 
Schilderung de$ LebenSweges folgende Cigenthitmlich- 
Fettent : 

a) Dem Wnfange deS Lebenswege3: ,,€rftens, du 
jollft lieben den Gott, der dic) gemacht hat; sweitens, 
— deinen Madhften wie did) felbft” wu. 7. Ὁ. (1, 2) ftehen 
im Tode8wege die Worte gegenitber: ,(Der Weg des 
odes aber ift diefer:) Bu alleverit, er tft jhlimm und 
δ voll” (V,1). Wie fon Bryennios') bemerft hat, 
evinnert diefer Lert an Hermae Mand. VI. und verdant 
Demiach jeine jebige Geftalt vielleicht erft dem Verfaffer 
Dev Swodlfapl. Ym Sittenjptegel (Const. Ap. VII, 
18) lauten die entipredenden Worte: δὲν Weg des _ 
Tode3 aber ift an fdlimmen Handlungen erfennbar: 
Deun auf demfelben findet man...”, twwomit rect wohl 
Der urjpriinglide Wnfang δῷ TodeSweges wiedergegeben 
fein finnte. Wie fic) dte3 aber auch verbalten mag, 
jedenfall3 ijt dev vorliegende Dert jo allgemeinen Gubhalts, 
Dab dte fic) anjclieBende Wufzahlung einzelner Siinden 
wie Mtord, Chebruch, Gier, Hureret, Diebftahl u. 7. ww. 
dazu in Ghulidher Weife die πάρετε Wuslegung bildet, 
wie im Lebenswege die auf die betden LiebeSgebote 
folgenden Derte alS zugehdrige Wuslequug betrachtet 
fein wollen. 

Ὁ) Objdhon das eben Gefagte bereits darauf jdliepen 
‘abt, dap die Darftellung des Todesweges nad) dem 
᾿ς απο ihres Verfaffers derjenigen de3 Lebensweges 


1) WM. a. O. S. 28. 


566 δια βοΐ, 


durd ihre Wnlage und Gliederung einiqermapen ents 
jpvechen joll, wie dies ja auch in der Natur der Sache 
liegt, weicht die Schilderung de$ TodeSweges von der 
de8 Lebensweges in der Biwdlfapl. dod) jofort dadurch 
erbeblic) ab, nag alle Vollfommenhett3siprige 
dDeSzwetten Haupttheiles unberticficdtigt bleiben. 
Nun ware aber cin Verjuch, die jenen Spritchen entgeqen- 
gejebten Erjdheinungen des TodeSweges aufzuzabhlen, 
FeineSiweg3 unausfithrbar oder auch nur fchiwieriq ge- 
wejen; jdyon die dret Worte: , Feindfeligkett, Macdhjuct 
und Wucher” Hatten geniigt, um den Bnbhalt des zweiten 
Hauptthetls durch die gegenthetlige Schilderung der Haupt- 
jache nach iv’ Geddachtnis zuriictzurufen. Der vorliegende 
Vert fithrt deshalb von jelbjt auf ote obige Vermuthung 
zuriic, dag jene BVollfommenbheits|priiche deS zweiten 
Haupttheiles nicht Του zur urfpriingliden Darftelung 
Der zwet Wege des LebenS und de Todes gebhdren, 
und verrath zugleid, Daf der Verfajjer der Bwoblfapl. e3 
unterlajjen bat, nad) Cinfchaltung de8 zweiten Hauptthetls 
auc) mit dem Wortlaute des Dodesweges die ent}prechende 
Criveiterung vorzunehmen. 

6) Dte im Todeswege aufgezahlten Sitnden fptegelu 


| den Yubalt des dvritten Hauptthetles in der Weije ab, 
dah die den dritten Haupttheil beginnende Ueberfidt der 


Verbote und Gebote mit den alsbald nachfolgenden fechs 
Wnjprachen hier in Cins zujammenfltebt und nur jene 
Legten in der Ko. fehblenden Gabe, welme in 
der Rwblfapl. nod als fitnfter Whi dhnitt 
deS Lebensweges folgen, nidt bertidjidtigt 
find. Sn8befondere wachjen die Wortgruppen parallel 
dex vorlebten und Lebten WAnjprache bis zur Ueberfitlle 


Ueber die jog. Bwslfapoftellehre. 567 


an. SOteht oer erjten Wnfpradce de3 Lebensweges auf 
dev Seite des Looesweges allein der Mord gegentiber 
und ent}preden der folgenden (aus sweten in eine 3u- 
Jamimengezogenen) Wnfprache die Sitnden de Chebruches, 
Der Gier und der Hureret, jo fommen auf die beiden 
nadfien AWnfprachen nad der Ordnung de8 vorlieqgenden 
Tertes Diebftahl, Gsgendienft, Bauberet, Giftmifderet 
und Raub, auf die vorlegte Wnfprache aber die Τα ἐπ 
Beugnijje, die Heucheleten, dite Doppelberzigfeit, der 
Betrug, die Ueberhebung, die Bosheit, die Wumafhung, 
Die Habjucht, die jchdnodlice Rede, dte Ciferjudt, die 
το εἰ, der Hochmuth und die Hoffabrt und auf die 
legte Anjprade eine noch gripere Bahl von Bradifaten, 
ndmlid) die Unflagen: ,,BVerfolger der Guten, Hafjend 
Wahrheit, liebend Uiige, nicht erfennend den Lobhn der 
Gerechtigfeit, nicht anhangend dem Guten noch auch dem 
gerechten Gerichte, achtjam nicht auf das Gute, fondern 
auf da8 Sdlimme, von denen weitab iff Sanftmuth und 
Gedulod, Citles Viebend, jagend nach Belohnung; — 
nicht bemitleidend den Wrmen, fic nicht anjftrengend 
wegen eines Belafteten, nicht evfennend den, der fie 
gemacht hat, (Mtdrder von Rindern, Berftiver de3 Ge-z 
bildes Gottes,) fich abwendend vom Bediirftigen, unter- 
Driidend den Bedrangten, der Meicen Beiftinde, der 
Armen ungerechte Richter, mit allen Siinden bebhaftet.“ 
— Bon Wortargheit oder Befdhleunigung des Sajluffes 
faun bier feine Rede fein. Faft jammtlide Wnflagen 
(3 mal 7 und 1 an Babl), mit melden der Finfternis- 
weg de Barnabasbricfes (XX, 2) fdliept, find 
beibehalten worden, felbft die beiden Wnklagen , Miroer 
pon KRindern, Berftdsrer oes Gebiloes Got 


568 Rraroubcty, 


tes” nidt ausgenommen, obfdon diejelben in der 
QBwilfapl. nach IL, 2 gum Diebftablsverbote (vermuihlid 
als Mittel der Crbichleicheret) gehdren und mithin nicht 
der leBten, jondern der vterten Unjprace gegentiber zu 
ftellen waren. Gleichmobhl fcliebt dte Darftellung des 
Todesweges, ohne auf die Save, welche in der Bwoslfayl. 
auf Die jech3 WAnjpracen noch folgen, — e3 find dte 
Sage von der gotteSfiirdtigen Kindererzichung und gegen- 
feitigen UWdhtung dev Herren und RKnecdhte aus Gottes- 
furcht fowte von der fculdigen Treue und WAufridtigfett 
gegen Gott — irgend Bezug zu nehmen: wohl ein deut- 
licheS Wnzeichen, dak auch dieje Sake nicht icon von 
Wnfang an in der Darjtellung dev zeit Wege geftanden, 
jondern gleich den ebenfalls im TDode8wege unberiidfid- 
tigt gebliebenen BVollfommenhetisipriihen de8 giweiten 
Hauptthetles der Biwsdlfapl. erft vom Verfatjer der Llegteren 
Dingugefitgt worden find. Schivterig wentgitens ware οδ nicht 
qeiwejen, wie dew Ddritten und vierten, jo auch den fitnften 
Wbichnitt des LebenSwegeSs bet dev Belchreibung de3 
Vodesweges mit in Crinnerung zu bringen: {chon Worte 


τ twie ἀφοβία ϑεοῦ oder ἀγρυπνοῦντες οὐκ εἰς φόβον Feod_ 


bitten bierzu gentigt. Oder vielmehr: οδ ware mur 


τι nbthig gewejen, eben dieje Worte, welche der Sift eve 


| nisweg des Barnabashriefes enth alt, gleid 
| faft allen anderen Beftandthetlen dDiefer Vorlage bei der 
Bearbeitung de} GodeSweges betzubehalten, wenn diefe 
Bearbeitung in der Chat οὐ vom Verfaffer der Bwislfapl. 
ftammt. Gegen wir dagegen eine altere Darftelung der 
givet Wege voraus, aus welder die vorliegende Schil- 
Derung de3 Todesweges unmittelbar gefloffen ift und in 
welder die Bejdreibung de3 LebhenSweges [Ὁ auf die 


Ueber die fog. Bwilfapoftellehre. 569 


jdon oben al8 eng zujammengehdrig dargethanen ovet 
Nhfanitte befchrantte, jo eriweift fich der in Rede ftehenvde 
Tert de3 Todesweges αἵδ᾽ eine planmapiq angelegte 
Gegentiberftelung und Recapitulation, bet deren Wus- 
arbeitung der mittlere Whi chnitt des LebenSmeges wegen 
feines vorherrichend negativen Subalts zmwedmabig als 
nddjte Grundlage diente, daneben aber nicht blos die 
fieben Wniprachen, jonudern (vgl. den Sag: ,nidt er- 
fentend den, Der fie gemadt hat”) auch die 
Tertiworte de3 erften Wbidhnittes gelegentlih) beritdjtch- 
tigt wurden. "ἢ 
Mle Wabhrideintichfeit jpricht mithin dafitr, dah οἷο... 
Darftellung der zeit Wege in der Bwilfapl. fete Oviz 
ginalarbett, jondern die Erivetterung einer alteren Sahrift | 
iiber denfelben Gegenftand ijt, in welder auf die zwei’ 
Hauptgebote der Liebe fofort die defalog-dhulide Wus- 
fequng folgte und οἷς fieben Wnjpracen den Schlup- 
abjdnitt de Lebensweges bildeten. Wenn nun Clemens 
pon Wlerandrien an der vielgenannten Stelle 
Strom. I, 20 einen Gag anfithrt, welcher diefen fieben 
AWnfprachen entnommen tft, jo fann man zunddhft thwan- 
fer, ob bierbet an die Bwilfapl. oder an ihre Ouelle 
gedadt werden jolle; da πη jener Gag indeR δια εἰῷ 
als ein Wusiprud ,der Schrift” bezeichnet wird, jo 
(abt fic) Hierin nicht wohl ein Beugnis fitr οἷς Πίπαους 
Bwolfapl., jondern vtelmehr nur ein folde3 fiir dte 
dltere verloren gegangene Schrift finden, deren Cnt- 
ftehungzeit fofort den Tagen de3 Clemens von Wleran- 
drien moglidft weit vorausliegend anzujegen tft. 
Dod) nod) mehr. Der Verfafjer der Bwolfapl._ 
fdhreibt feine Vorlage Τα unverdndert ab und Τα οἱ 


570 RKrawugcety, 


amar zivei Wbjchnitte in diefelbe ein, entlehnt aber aud) 
dieje grokenthetls wirtlid) dret andern Gdyriften, nam- 
lich jeinem Coangelium (val. Matth. V, 39 ff. uw. Lue. 
VI, 27 ff.) und dem Pastor Hermae (Mand. ΤΙ, 4—6) 
einentheils (1, 3—5) und dem Barnabasbriefe (XIX, 5, 
7, 2 und 12) ἢ) andernthetls (IV, 9—14). Darf von 
1) Die von der Bwolfapl. hier gewagte Verbindung der zwei 
Sage deS Barnabasbriefes: ,BWerlajfe nidt die Gebote 
dDeS Herrin”, fondern,bewahre, was du (an Offenbarungs- 
lehren, gl. Deut. 1V, 2 ff.) ,empfangen haft, ohne Hin 
,ufiigung und ohne Hinwegnahme”, erjcheint auf den 
erften Glick widerjinnig, da GlaubenStreue und Gebotsitbertretung 
in Der Wirklichfeit des LebenS einander FetneSwegs ausjchliefen, 
(abt fich jedoch ertragen, wenn man den Sinn des erjten Gages 
im Hinblicl auf den sweiten verallgemeinert und jo wendet, dap 
Die Gebote de Herrn φιπᾶζ in ihrer Cigenjchaft als Offen- 
barungslehren (nicht als Sittenvor|chriften) betrachtet werden. Dak 
aber im Uebrigen die Lichtweg-Spriidhe de3 Barnabasbriefes in 
der Bwilfapl. allerdings eine faplicere Reihenfolge aufweijen, als 
fie im Barnabasbriefe felbft haben, ergiebt doch wohl Eeinen 
Beweis gegen die Priorvitat des lebteren (j. 0. S. 399 f.), da 
Diejem anjfcjeinend (vgl. I, 4) eine erfolgreide Unterrictsibung 
borausliegt, in welder jene Sabe am ebeften ihr jentengtdjes Ge- 
prdge erhalten fonnten und in welcher fie urjpriinglid) bom Ver- 
fafjer Des Barnabasbriefes auch in einer befjeren, jadgemaperen 
Gruppierung gebraucht worden fein werden. Gene mitndlide Vehr- 
iibung ift eine elementare gewefen; erft brieflich unternimmt es 
Dev Verfafjer, zum miindlich mitgetheilten Unterricht eine vollfome 
menere Cinficht fowobhl begtighich der Glaubeuswabhrheiten αἵδ᾽ aud 
besiiglich dev Gittenlehren hingugufiigen (I, 5; XVIII, 1). Qu 
erfterer Hinficht nun gefdieht died durcdy Darlegung der alttefta- 
mentliden Weiffagungen und Vorbilder, welche den (anti-ebioniti- 
jchen) Glaubenslehren zur Veftdtigung dienen und den Lefern in 
folder Beleuchtug noch teu find. Jn Llegterer Hinficht aber macht 
ber Verfaffer den BVerfuch, eine eben diejer Darftellung ent{pre- 
chende Ueberficht der Moralvorjdhriften au liefern, — ein Verjudy, 
welder vom antijudaiftijdhen Standpunfte unternommen und Des 


Ueber die fog. Swdlfapoftellehre. 571 


einem foldjen Sehviftiteller wohl angenommen werden, 
Dag ev nach einem Ddervartigen unfelbjtandigen WAnfange 


halb vom mojfatjchen Defalog und der Ddiejem ΤΠ anjchlieBenden 
Lehrovdnung de3 Evangeliums (Matih. 5, 21—48; 15, 19; 19, 18 Ff.) 
abjehend allerdings die Rrafte des Verfafjers weit itberjtieg. — Es 
jollen awei entgegengejebte LebenSwege befdhrieben werden: jchon 
liber die δι wahlenden Begzetehnungen fommt der Verfaffer mit fich 
jelbjt nicht in’3 Reine; ev redet 1, 4 vom Wege der Gerechtigfeit 
(vgl. 2. Petr. 2, 21), IV, 10 von den Werfen des bdjen Weges, 
V, 4 vom Wege der Gerechtigfeit und vom Wege der Finjternis, 
XVIII, 1 vom Wege des Lichtes und vom BWege der Finjterni3, 
XIX, 1 u. 3 vom Wege des Lichtes und vom Wege de Tode3, 
XX, 1 vom Wege de3 Schwarzen. — Beide Wege flaffen fitch in 
je 4 Wbjchnitte zerlegen. Wie fon Bunt, o. S. 394 u. 400, 
geltend macht, jcheinen im Lichtwege die Gebote dev Gottes- und 
Machitenliebe (XIX, 2 u. 5) den Anfang eines erften und etnes 
atveiten Whjdhnittes au fenngeichnen; ebenjo diirfte die Vorjchrijt, 
fich jelbjt nach Rradften rein gu halten (XIX, 8) einen dritten 310: 
ΓΤ πὶ einfeiten und mit der allgemeinen Wujforderung, alle Offen- 
barungslehren treu 3u bewahren (XIX, 11), ein vierter oder Schluf- 
abjduitt beginnen. Ym Finjterniswege Hhinwieder bildet die mit 
n»Oogendienft” eingeleitete und mit ,Ntangel an Gottesfurcht” 
{hliebende Giindenreihe (XX, 1) einen erjten, auch grammatijd 
abgejonbderten Whjchnitt, auf welcdhen dann noch drei Heptaden von 
Unflagen (Verfolger der Guten u. 7. w., wachfam nicht zur Gottes- 
furcdt u. 7. w., nicht evfennend den, der fie gemacht, τ... tv.) und 
das allgemeine Gchlubwort: ,mit allen Giinden behajftet” folgen. 
Aber von ftrenger Ordnung der Darftelung ift bet all dem nichts 
au entdecen. — Gei Befpredhung der altteftamentliden Speife- 
verbote hat dev Verfaffer drei Klafjen von Siindern unterfdieden, 
Die Klajfe der immerdar und gainglich Gottlofen, die Klaffe der gottver- 
geffenen Scheinfrommen und die Kaffe der Raubgieriqes , und in 
diejer Unterjdhetdung eine vollfommenere Cinficht εὐ ΠΣ (X,1—5,9f.). 
(δ jdeint, al8 verjuche er nun, bet jedem Wbjdhnitte dev stwei 
Wege eben diefe Unterjcheidung durchzufiihren und regelmapig 
gleihjam die Worte cingujchdrfen: ,1. jet treu gegen Gott, 
2. (oder 3.) jet aufridtig fromm und 3. (oder 2.) fei 


572 | RKrawugety, 


die nod) folgende gripere Halfte feiner Arbeit vollig 
oder auc) nur vorwiegend jelbftandig gejdaffen habe 2 


unjtraflidh und mildhergig!” Wenigftend finden fic) im 
erften Whjhnitte (068 Lichtweges) — nach Mtittheilung de3 Haupt- 
gebotes (Der Gottesliebe) und einer gujdaplicen Mahnung (in den 
Begierden de3 Hergzen3 einfach und im Cifer de8 Geiftes reich gu 
jein) — die Sage: ,Du follft nicht anhangen denjenigen, die auf 
Dem TodeSwege wandeln (α΄. X, 5), jolljt Haffen alle Heuchelei, 
jollft nicht annehinen einen jchlimmen Rath gegen deinen Machiten” ; 
im zweiten Wbjchnitt — ebenfalls nach Mittheilung de3 Haupt- 
geboteS (Der Machftenliebe) und einer gujdblichen Warnung (vor 
RKindesmord) —: ,,Iicht moigeft du deine Hand guriicdsiehen von 
deiner Sohne oder von deiner Tochter, fondern von Jugend auf 
jollft di fie lehren die Furcht δε Herrn, nicht twwerde ein habjfitch- 
tiger Meenjch, du jollit nicht doppelfinnig und nicht doppelgiingig 
jein”; im Dritten WUWbfdhnitt — wiederum παῷ Mitthetlung des 
Hauptgebotes (der Enthaltjamfeit) und einer δι] θη ἐπ Mahnung 
(nicht eigenntibig gu werden) —: ,Du follft lieben wie deinen 
Augapfel jeden, twelcher gu dir de3 Herrn Wort redet, folljt ge- 
denfen des GerichtStages bei Nacht und bet Tage, follft dich nicht 
befinnen zum Geben”; im vierten Abjdhnitt: ,Du follft be- 
waren, was du empfangen Haft, follft friedfertig jetn, jollft nicht 
nahen zum Gebet mit bifem Bewuptlein.” Ym fiinften Wb- 
jehnitte (Dem erften des FinfterniSweges) begeguen wir nod) den 
Worten: ,Gipgendienft, Heuchelei, Raub”; im fed ften: ,,BWer- 
folger dev Guten, Wahrheit haffend, Liigen liebend, nicht acdhtend 
einer Wittwe oder Waife’; im fiebenten: ,Wacdhjam nicht 
aur Gottesfurdht, fondern zum Sehlimmen, nicht bemitleidend den 
Armen”; undim adhten: ,,Micht erfennend den, der fie gemacht, 
unterdriicend den Bedrangten.” — Hiernach ift e3 nicht unwahr- 
jGeinlich, Daf dev Verfajfer darauf ausging, bet jedem der beab- 
jichtigten acht AWbjchnitte ΤΟ Ὁ vor vollendeter Gottlofigteit als 
auch vor heuchlerijcher Frimmigfeit und vor mitleidlojer Raubgier 
(oder, im Ginfterni3wege, wenigitens vor Gottlofigfeit und Maub- 
gier) eine Warnung angubringen. Dak ihm nun die Durdfiih- 
ruig diefes ohnehin miflicen Vorhabens nicht auf3 Vefte gegliicdt 
ift, gumal ifm wohl aud daran Ing, feinen von den Lieblings- 
jpriiden, welche ifm von feiner mitndlicen Lehrthatigheit ber 


Veber die fog. Bwilfapoftellehre. 573 


Oder ift eS nicht vielinehr von vornherein wabhridheinlicy, 
Dap ev auch Hier eine Gltere Schrift κι Grunde gelegt 
und diefelbe ahulich, wie ex mit den zwei Wegen gethan, 
theils gefitrgt, theils urd) Cinjdhaltungen evweitert habe ? 
Betradten wir, was diefer Vermuthung etwa zur Be- 
ftdtigung dienen Fann. 


3. 


Die antizebionitijdhe Verordnung. 


1. Die zweite Halfte der Bwilfapl. behandelt su- 
nadft folgende Gegenftinde : 

1) die Art zu taufen (VII) jowie wichentlid) zu 
faften und ἄρ 3u beten (VIII), 

2) die euchariftijden Gebete (IX und X) forwie die 


eucariftifde und erbomologetijde SGonntagsfeier (XIV) 
und 


widhtig jdeinen und geldufig jein mocdten, unerwahnt gu Τα πῃ, 
fteht allerding3 anper Bweifel. Wher e3 begreift fich doch auch, 
dak bet foldem Vorgehen diejelben Pflicjten wiederholt bevrithrt 
werden und insbejondere die Wflicht der Mtildhergigkeit jowie der 
‘Mildthatigteit mehrmals gur Sprache fommt, ohne dap daraus 
eine Moithigung entiteht, die von einem anderen Standpunfte aus- 
gehende und ihre Ausjpriiche nach andern Gefichtspunften verbin- 
Dende Darjtellung der Wege de3 Lebens und deS Todes (oder auch 
Die Bwilfapl. felbjt) hier als Quelle de3 Barnabasbriefes anzu- 
nehmen. WnderntheilS aber ijt dieje legtere Wnnahme dadurcd) απ: 
gefchloffen, δαβ die Daritellung de3 TodeSweges in der Brwolfapl. 
augenfdheinlid) vom Finfterniswege deS Barnabagsbriefes abhjangt 
(j. 0.), wie denn and), um WAnderes gu tibergehen, die Vorjchrift 
Dev Bwolfapl. (II, 7), unter Umftanden den Nachften wiehr gu lieben 
alZ die eigene Geele, [Ὁ am leidhteften aus einer Begugnahme 
auf den Barnabasbrief (XX, 5) evflart, in welcjem dev allgemeine 
Sag, den Nachften in folcjem Grade 3u lieben, nach 1,4 und IV, 6 
nicht melscnes 


ἊΨ oe, 
555 τυ 


574. RKrawugcety, 


3) die Bejftellung von Cpiffopen und Diafonen und 
die Werth}chagung derjelben (XV, 1 u. 2). 

Dieje dret Hauptthetle bilden ein wobhlgenrdnetes und 
in fic) abgejdlofjenes Ganze8, dad ὦ ans der 9 0100], 
die Grundbedingungen eines gedethlidhen Gemeindelebens 
neu etnzujchdrfen, verftehen und begretfen lapt. Wher 
die Bwslfapl. jdaltet swifden die Vorjdhriften θεν die 
eucharifti}cben Gebete einerjeits und iiber die euchariftijde 
und erbomologetijche Sonntagsfeter andererjeits noch eine 
hetradtlide Rethe eingehender Anweijungen ein, namic 

a) liber die als ,,QUpoftel” Dbezeichneten Wanbder- 
prediger, die jcdon als Ltigenpropheten gelten follen, 
wenn fie an einem Orte Langer als hichftens zwei Tage 
bleiben oder bet dev Weiterretje Geld verlangen (ΧΙ, 
3—b), 

b) tiber die im Geifte redenden Propheten, die nicht 
voriwigig 3u beurtheilen, jondern davan als wabhre Bro- 
pheten zu erfennen jeten, dab fie das Benehmen des 
Herrn (τοὺς τρόπους Κυρίου) an fich haben, von der 
im Geifte beftellten Mtablgeit nicht effen, die. verftindete 
Wahrheit auch jelbjt beobachten und im Geilte nicht fiir 
Π ὦ jelbft, jondern Hdchjtens fiir andere Bediirftige Geld 
oder andere Dinge fordern (XI, 7—12), 

c) tiber die dDurdreijenden Glaubensgenoffen, welde 
man nbdthigenfalls zwei oder dret Tage beherbergen uno, 
wenn fie am Ort fid) niederlaffen wollen, um als Hand- 
werfer oder durch andere Arbeit fic) ihr Brod 3u ver- 
Dienen, hierbet unterftiigen, tm Falle der Arbeitsjdheu 
aber meiden folle (XIL), und 

4) tiber den Unterbalt, dejfen jeder mabhre Bro- 
phet, welcher fic) in einer Gemeinde niederlaffen wolle, 


Ueber die fog. Bwdifapoftellehre. 575 


joie jeder wabre Lehrer wiirdig fet, und welder fic, 
da DdDieje Bropheten die Hobhenpricfter der Gemeinden 
feten, iiber alle Crjtlinge der Relter und Tenne fowie 
der Minderv= und Schafherden mit Cinjdlug des An- 
bruches jedes frifchen Leiges und neugedfineten Wein- 
oder Delgefajjes erftrecdle, wogegen vom Geld und von 
Der Befleidung und von jedem fonjtigen Crwerb die 


Erftlinge nach fretem Crmeffen entrictet merden diirfen 
(XIII). 

Wugenjdeinlicy liegt Hter eine bedeutende Unter- 
brechung deS Zujammenhanges vor'), die fid) am Leich- 
tejten dur) die Wunahme erflart, dag der Verfajjer dev 
Swolfapl. auc) hier ein alteres νυ {π᾿ vor jich ge- 
habt und abulich, mie ev e$ mit der alteren Darftellung 
ber zwei Wege gethan, durch eine gripere Cinjcdaltung 
ohne Schonung deS Zujammenhanges erweitert hat 2). 


1) And bei Bryennios, aa. Ὁ. σελ. Sy’, lantet die 
furze Gnhaltsangabe bereits jo, δαβ die Unterbrechung in Die 
Wugen jpringt. Derfjelbe unterjcheidet namlic) im Gangen vier 
ΘΕ ἄς, von weldjen das erfte (I-VI) Die 3wei Wege enthalte, 
das zweite (VII—X und X1V) vom gittlicen Dienft handele, ὃ. 1. 
von der Taufe, dem Gaften, dem Gebet, der Cucharijtie und der 
Art, den Tag des Herrn 3u feiern, das dritte (XI—XII1] und XV) 
fich ἴδεν die Apoftel, PBropheten und Lehrer u. |. tw. verbreite 
und das vierte (XVI) die Barujie des Herrn betreffe. 

2) Auffallig ift παίει der Hinweis χατὰ τὴν ἐντολήν, wel- 
cher jowobhl im erften, dem LebenSwege eingefchalteten, Whjdhnitte 
(I, 5) al8 auch Hier (XIII, 5 u. 7) fich findet; noch bemerfens- 
werther aber twohl, dab, wahrend jener Wbjdjnitt mit einer nur 
ftilljdweigenden Senugbung de Cvangeliums beginnt (I, 38—5), 
hier bald anfang3 (XI, 3) ansdriidlid) auf das Evangelium Be- 
aug genommen wird. Diejer ausdriidliden Begugnahme begegnen 
wir daun nod) in &. XV, 3 u. 4, einem anjdheinend ebenfalls 


576 Krawubcky, 


2. Nachdem der Verfajjer die αἵ zuverlapig er- 
wiejenen Bropheten fiir dite neuteftamentliden Hohen- 
priefter der Gemeinden evflart und ibnen al3 folden 
den Bezug der gejebliden Crftlingsqaben feiten3 der Ge- 
meinde, in welder fie ihren Wobhnfig gewabhlt haben, 
suertaunt hat, wie ev denfelben auc) οι vorber (X, 7) 
das Vorrecht ecingerdumt, die euchariftijden Gebete jo 
fang, al8 fie wollten, auszudehnen, lieB fic) eine Beleb- 
rung dariiber wohl begreiflicd) finden, was die Gemeinden 
thun jollten, um derartige prophetijde Hobepriefter und 
Liturgen ftets zu befigen. Cifriges Bemiihen, den etiwa 
anjapigen Bropheten an jeinen Wirfungstreis zu feffeln 
jowie im Bediirfnisfalle einen auswdrtigen oder durd)- 
reijenden Bropheten zur Ueberfiedlung oder Nieder: 
{ajjung zu getwiunen oder auch in der etgenen Mitte dte 
eriwachenden Brophetengaben nidt zu vernacdhlapigen 
(vgl. 1. Cor. 14, 1 ff), hatte ohne Widerjpruch mit 
Dem Buvorgejagten empfohlen werden fonnen. Dagegen 
einen anderweitigen Crjag zu jdaffen und Cpiffopen 
und Diafonen zu bejtellen, meil aud fie 
Den Dienft oer Propheten und Lehrer let- 
jteten (XV, 1), ift eine itbervajcende Wufforderung 
die fic) mit den vorausgegangenen WAnweifungen θεία: 


eingejdjobenen Zexte, fowie jon VIII, 2, wo der urjpriinglice 
Wortlaut durch den Hinweis auf das Evangelium und auferdem 
Durd) die mitgetheilte Doxologie erweitert fein mag. Wom jech3- 
aeyuten Rapitel endlich, deffen eSchatologifche Wngaben fich auf 
irgend ein Evangelium ftiigen, DdDitrvfte gwar die Ermahnung Zur 
Wachjamfeit (als Schlufwort) fdon in der benubten Vorlage ge- 
{tanden haben, der aweite Vers dagegen und alles noch Folgende 
(vgl. htergu auc) Barn. ep. IV, 9 u. 10) wieder von unjerem 
Autor ftammen. 


Ueber die fog. Bwilfapojtellehre. 577 


li der Britfung und de3 Unterbaltes der Bropheten 
wiht wohl vertragt Denn jene WAntweijungen jegen 
Offenbar yoraus, dag die Gemeinden noch nad wie vor 
Gelegenheit hatter, mahre und erprobte Propheten zur 
Niederlaffung in ihrer Mitte 3 bewegen. Wenigftens 
eine Bwifdhenbemerfung, wie die XIII, 4 begitglicy der 
Erxjtlingsgaben gemacdhte: ,wenn thr feinen Propheten 
habt" oder findet, ware deshalb bet der Vorjchrift, 
Cpijfopen und Diakonen 3u beftellen, jehr am Plage 
gewejen. Dak gleichiwohl jede derartige Cinfcrantung 
[Ὁ und Lediglic) die Befchatffung von Crjabperfonen 
fiir die Bropheten und Lehrer vorgejdrieben wird, iwie 
wenn {don friiher davon die Itede gewejen ware, weld 
empfindlidjer und nicht 3 bejettigender Mangel an Pro- 
pheten und Lehrern herrice ἢ, iff faum anders αἱ 


1) Der betreffende Lert lautet, mit Bwijchenbemerfungen tiber 
Den vermuthliden Ginn der eingelnen Worte, vollftandig: Χειρο- 
τονήσατε (Ὁ. ἰ. Beftellet durch Handausftrecung der wabhfenden 
Gemeinde und der ordinierenden Liturgen) οὖν (da dies nach dem 
Vorherbemerften ndthig ift) ξαυτοῖς (fiir euren Bedarf) ἐπισχόπους 
(VWorfteher im Bejibe dev apoftolijdhen Vollgewalt, je nach der 
Grife der Gemeinde mit oder ohne priefterliche Wltargehilfen) 
χαὶ διαχόνους (und Begleiter des Bijchofs, welche ifn namentltch 
int Unterrichte der Meulinge wie in der Wauffichtsfiihrung und 
Armenpflege unterftitpen) ἀξίους Κυρίου, ἄνδρας πραεῖς καὶ age 
λαργύρους καὶ ἀληϑεῖς καὶ δεδοχιμασμένους " ὑμῖν γὰρ (denn 
euch, Die ihr wegen der Mahe Palaftina’s bisher zwar nur Zuge- 
wanderte judenchriftlicde, namentlic) in die jerujalemer Ueber- 
lieferung , Rirdenordnung und Gebets: und Lehriveije eingeweihte 
und von dort her bevollmactigte Manner — vgl. WApg. 15, 24 — 
mit prophetijder Begabung oder palaftinenfifdjer Lehrgefchictlich tert 
au BVorgefesten hattet, jebt aber infolge des Niedergangeds der 
Dortigen Gemeinden und der Berftirung der heiligen Stadt jolde 
Manner nicht leicht mehr erhaltet, wegen eurer vorwiegend Heid- 


Theol. Quartaljerijt. 1884. Heft IV. 37 


578 Krawiupety, 


durch die Vorausjebung eines alteren Lertes 3u vev- 
ftehen, welchen dev BVerfaffer der Bwilfapl. ungeadhtet 
Dex voOrausgegangenen grdgeren Cinjdaltung tiber οἷς 
Wanderprediger und Bropheten hier unverdndert beibe- 
halten Hat und in welchem jcdyon vorber, vermuthlid 
in dev Cinleitung, eine fitr die Gemeinden ver- 
hangnisvolle Verminderung der Propheten und Lebhrer 
erwabut worden war. Sedenfall3 bereitet die Annahme 
feine gefcicdtliden Sdwierigtetten, dab, als die in den 
Wpofteltagen tblichen Wuswanderungen palajtinenfijdher 
Propheten und Lehrer nad) den auswartigen Gemetnden 
(vgl. προ. 11, 27; 18, 1 f.; 15, 32; Sac. 3, 1) mebr 
wud mehr aufhsrten, aljo bejonders nach dem Falle Serujaz 
Cems, mance Grenggemetnden, — welde bis dabin wegen 
dev Nahe Palaftina’s ibre firdliden Vorjteher mit Veidy- 
tigtett aus der Zabl jolcder Bropheten und Lehrer ἐὺς 
halter batten, nun aber andauernd verwatften — 10 68: 
lich zuwandernde Whfdmmlinge de auserwabhlten Volfes 


nijden Whfunft aber auch eher entbehren fonnt, αἵδ᾽ die noch vor- 
wiegend judenchriftlichen Geineinden, welchen Wtanner mit blogs 
qriechijder Geiftesbildung flix ihre bisherigen Bropheten und Lehrer 
feinen vollen Erjag leijten witrden, euch) λειτουργοῦσι χαὶ αὐτοὶ 
(feiften auch fie, die Heidenchriftliden Vorgejebten, die nicht mehr 
burch ijraelitijce, jondern durch griechijche Mangbezeichnungen unter: 
jchieden werden, den Dienjt der ,Propheten und Lehrer”) τὴν 
λειτουργίαν τῶν προφητῶν χαὶ didacxdiov’ My οὖν ὑπερίδητε 
αὐτούς (Gebhet fie αἴο nicht fiir gering an, tweil fie ja von feiner 
anderen Herfunft jeten, als ihr felbjt:) αὐτοὶ γάρ εἰσιν (dent fie, 
eben diefe, geretchen euch zur (τὸ, da fie eud) angehiren und 
Doch Hochgeehrt find als Wmtsgenofjen der dem auserwahlten Volfe 
ent{taminenden Bropheten und Lehrer, oder fiirzer: find fie e3 ja 
Dod, welche aus euver Bahl der (δῆτε neben den Propheten und 
Lehrern thetlhaft find,) of τετιμημένοι ὑμῶν μετὰ τῶν προφητῶν 
καὶ διδασκάλων. 


Ueber die jog. Bwolfapojtellehre. 579 


fid) als Lehrer gefallen lieBen, die, fet e3 aus Untennt- 
nid, jet e3 aus ebtonitifierender AWnhanglicfeit an die 
vaterlandijden Gewobhnheiten, a) die chrijtlide Daufform 
perabjdumten, Ddafiir aber Ὁ) und c) die pharifdijden 
Faften= und Gebetsitbungen pflegter, ἃ) auch wohl arf 
ihre Art euchaviftijde Gebete vervricdteten und dabei 
e) die Sountagsfeter Hintanjegten, und dak durd alles 
Diejes irgend welche Wmtsnacdhfolger der Wpojftel fdon 
frithzeitig 3u einer Berorduung veranlabt wurden, in 
welder nach einer einleitenden Bemerlung itber die herr- 
chende Nothlage eben dieje Vorjchriften liturgijden und 
firdenrechtliden BubaltS zu finden waren, die fic) aus 
Dem Wortlaut der Bwodlfapl. von felbjt nod) 3u einem 
Hejonderen Ganzen zujammenzufitgen jchetnen 1). 

3. Unmittelbar vor der Langeren Cinjdaltung ἰδεῖ 
die Wanderprediger und Bropheten findet fic) der Lert: 
νον nun fommt und eud) dies alles, da8 voritehend 
1) Beginnend mit dem Hintweije auf die feit dem Balle der 
Hf. Stadt eingetretene Verminderung dev (paldftinenfifden) ,,Bro- 
pheten und Lehrer und die Hieraus entftandene langjihrige Ver- 
waijung mancher Gemeinden, dte nun bereits ἴδον Dinge wie 
“απὸ und Cucharijtie in Unjicherheit maven oder durch zutvan- 
Dernde berufsfoje Lehrer in Unjtcherheit verjegt witrden, fonnte 
jene Verordnung (eines Konvents firchlicer Vorgejegter, vgl. pl. 
15, 1 ff.) recht wohl guerft περὲ (μὲν) tod βαπτίσματος und περὶ 
δὲ τῆς εὐχαριστίας mit Cinjhlup der Vorjchriften iiber Faften und 
Beten und Sonntagsfeter (VIL bis X u. XLV) und jodann noch iiber 
die Bejtelung von Cpijfopen und Diafonen und deren Hochach- 
tung (XV, 1 u. 2) fich dugern, um mit einer allgemetnen Ermah- 
nung zur Wachjamfeit (XVI, 1) gu jechlieBen: gur Wiederherjtelung 
Diejer vermuthlicjen Vorlage der Bwodljapl. witrde eS jedoch noch 
einer eingehenderen Unterjuchung bediirfen, da, abgejehen von Flei- 
neven Cingelhetten, bejonders die euchariftijden Gebete’ (j. tw. 1.) 


Den Verdacht einer bedeutenden Kiirgung und Umftellung οὐ: 
ween. 
37 * 


580 Krawugycty, 


Gejagte, lehrt, den nehmet auf; wenn ev, der Lehrende, 
jedod) felbjt verfehrt ift und eine andere Lehre lehrt zur 
Mufldjung, fo hiret ihn nicht an: —jedod zur Hine 
2ufiigung von Geredtigfeit und Crfenntnis 
deS Herrn, nehmet ihn auf wie den Herrn”?). 
Das Lebtere Θάβ οι miipte vollftandiger heiben: ,,twenn 
ev jedod) eine andere Lehre zwar vortragt, indes eine 
jolde, δαβ Gerechtigfett und Crfenntnis des Herrn da- 
durd) vermehrt wird, 70 nehmet ihn auf wie den Herrn.” 
Man bemerft leicht, dak hiermit das in den erften bet- 
den Sagen Wusgeiprochene mit etner nicht gerade αὐ: 
iden Wendung dabhin berichtiqt werden joll, dap nicht 
set, joudern drei Falle miglich find und nicht blos im 
erften, jondern auch) im dem beigefitgten dritten Falle 
Die Mufnahme des Lehrers Pict ijt. Dah der Ver- 
fafjer der Swoblfapl. dabet einen frembden Tert vor fid) 
gebabt und in der bezeichneten Weife zu verbefjern ver- 
jucht bat, wird fic) faum verfennen lajjen, da die Wn- 
nabie, etn und derjelbe Wutor habe nach jeinem eigenen 
Plane zuerft jede abweicende Lehre gedchtet, fchon im 
ndcdjten Sage aber feine Weifung felbjt enthraftet, in- 
dem der Anjpruch, ein Mtehrer der Gerechtigkeit und 
Gotteserfenuntuis zu fein, ja jehr [οἰ δι von jedem anders 
denkenden Lehrer erhoben werden fonnte, denn dod) wohl 
an gewagt ware. Wher was fiunte den Verfaffer der 
Qwolfapl. zu dtejer Vertanderung veranlaft haben ? 


1) Ὃς ἂν οὖν ἐλϑὼν διδάξῃ ὑμᾶς ταῦτα πάντα τὰ προει- 
οημένα, δέξασϑε αὐτόν" ἐὰν δὲ αὐτὸς ὃ διδάσκων στραφεὶς δι- 
δάσχῃ ἄλλην διδαχὴν εἰς τὸ καταλῦσαι, μὴ αὐτοῦ ἀκούσητε, εἰς 
Δ. Q ~ A ’ Ἂ - Υ Π ff pe Nae \ 
δὲ tO προςϑεῖναι δικαιοσύνην καὶ γνῶσιν Κυρίου, δεξασϑὲ αὐτὸν 
ὡς Κύριον. ΧΙ, 1 u. 2. 


Ueber die jog. Bwilfapoftellehre. 581 


Wohl nichts anderes, αἵδ᾽ dah er jelbft cine andere 
Lehre vortrug, als in fetner Vorlage vorgezetchuet war, 
Dabet fic) jedoch al einen Mebhrer dev Geredhtiqkeit und 
Gotteserfenntnis betrachtete. Wie diejes Legwtere zu 
verftehen fet, Zetgen etnigermapen {don die Rujagbe, 
τοῖς der Berfaffer zu feinen beiden Vorlagen macht. 
Die volltinigen Vollfommenheitsgebote (1, 3—5), δίς in 
etitent Madjtvage zu den zwet Wegen (VI, 1—3) wieder 
abgejchiwacht werden mitffen, um nicht eber absufdhrecten 
al3 anzuloden 1), die Forderung dev DOeffentlidfeit des 
Siindenbefenntnijjes, welche IV, 14 yum Verte des Barz 
nabasbriefes (XIX, 12) hingugefitgt wird, die dem Baz 
terunjer angehdngte (hier ebtonitijd aufsufatfende Ὁ) 
Dorologie denn dein tft dte Macht und odte Hervrlidfett 
in die Cwigkeiten” (VII, 2), dad entidiedene Vorgeden 
gegen gewinnflidjtiqe Wanderprediger und Bropheten 
(XI, 6, 9, 12) 5) fowie gegen arbeitsjdheue Glaubens- 


1) Die Vemerfung: ,,YW2her arch hieritber bleibt doch wohl 
gejagt: ©€3 jdwike dein AWlmojenin deine Hande, 
bis dDuerfannt θα, mem Ou gieb ft” (I, 6), gehort wohl 
nicht hierher, da fie alS Cinwand eines Glofjators angufehen 
fein diirfte. : 

2) Auf Ehelojigkeit der Propheten [εἶπε der Verfaffer 
jedod) nicht dringen, vielmehr ifnen jelbft mehrmalige Verheiva- 
tung nachjehen δι wollen: ermahnt er doch XI, 11 die Gemeinden, 
Gott das Gericht gu iiberlaffen, wenn ein erprobter Prophet 
εἰς μυστήριον χοσμιχὸν τῆς ἐχχλησίας (Ὁ. 0. woh!, in Begug auf 
Die Che, die etwas Weltliches und doch in der Kirche nach Cphef. 
5, 32 etwas Geheimnisvolles tft), fitr jeine Perfon ftarfe Dinge 
Lleiftet (ὅσα αὐτὸς ποιεῖ, nimlich durch Verhetvathung und Wies 
Derberheivathung, nicht durch Enthaltjamfeit, die DdDamal$ eines 
Shubredners nicht bedurfte), falls er nur nicht fehre, δαβ man 
e3 ebenjo machen folle; — denn ebenfo Hatten auch die alten Bro- 
pheten (wenigitens Ojeas 1, 2 ff.; 8, 1 Ff.) gethan. — Cine 


582 Krawupcty, 


genofjen (XIL, 5), δίς Anordnuung der Crftlingsqaben 
(XIII, 3—7), οἷς firvenge Weijung gegen die Verleger 
der Bruderliebe (XV, 8), die Cmpfehlung oftmaliger 
Ronferenzen behufs Crzielung der perfinliden Bolle 
fommenbett fiir die Bett deS Weltendes (XVI, 2) und 
die Andeutung, dak beim Weltende dtejenigen, welche in 
,iorem” (viaterlichen? ebionitijchen?) Glauben verharren, 
nicht anders alS von oder unter dem der Vernidhtung 
Geweihten (dem jerufalemer Dempelberge, 3u welz 
chem die Cbioniter nocd immer betend fic) binwen- 
deten 1) 2), witrden gerettet werden (XVI, 5): dieje Cine 
xelheiten Laffen bereits vermuthen, wie der Verfaffer ὦ 
als vermeintlicher Mehrer der Geredhtighett und der Cr- 
fenntuts des Herrn [τ berechtigt anjehen mote, ‘von 
der itberlieferten Lehrz und GebetSweilje abgutveicden. 
Nehmen wir nocd hinzu, twas dite Bwdlfapl. aus ihren 
Vorlagen anjcheinend ausgemer;zt hat. Sm Gebot 
dev Gottesliebe (1, 2) feblt der (den Cbioniten ohne 
Sweifel mibfallige) 5) Hinweis auf die bereits erfolgte 
Crldjung , dev ἰδοῦ, wie wir fon faben, nach dem 
Wortlaut dev apoft. Ko. zu febliegen, ebenjo wie im 
Barnabasbriefe (XIX, 2) auch bereits in den zwei We- 


gerade entgegengejebte WAuslequng }. bei Wd. Harnad a. a. O. 
au XI, J1. 

1) Circumciduntur (Ebionaei) ac perseverant in his con- 
suetudinibus, ‘quae sunt secundum legem, et judaico charac- 
tere vitae, uti et Hierosolymam adorent, quasi domus sit Dei. 
Tren. adv. haer. I, 26, 2. Dev Gert der Bwslfapl. lautet hier: 
Οἱ δὲ ὑπομείναντες ἐν τῇ πίστει αὐτῶν σωϑήσονται ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ 
τοῦ καταϑέματος. Bgl. daju ζ ο εἴ, 3, 5 (Vulg. 2, 32). 

2) δαί. Philosophumena, VII, 84: Ἐβιωναῖοι... ἔϑεσιν Tovdat- 
κοῖς ζῶσι, χατὰ νόμον φάσχοντες δικαιοῦσϑαι χαὶ τὸν Ἰησοῦν 
λέγοντες δεδικαιῶσϑαι ποιήσαντα τὸν νόμον. 


Ueber die fog. Bwolfapoftellehre. 583 


get, auf welchen die Bwdlfapl. fubt, geftanden haben 
Diivfte. Sa jelbft in den euchariftijden Gebeten UX 
τ. X) unterbleibt jede Crinnevung an den Erldjungstod 
De3 Herrm, obfcon πα 1. Gor. 11, 26 (fowie nach 
Suftin, Dial. cum Tryph. δ. 41; vgl. c. 117) dei 
jedem Genujje der enchariftijhen Gaben eine Verftin- 
Diguia diejes Dodes ftattfinden jollte und demgemaf 
auc) in der vom Verfajjer der Bwoslfapl. benugten Ver- 
promung vermuthlic) vorgefdrieben war. Gm Barnabas- 
briefe (XIX, 7) werden dte Herrin zur jdonenden Be- 
handlung ihrer Knecdhte, die auf denfelben Goit hoffen, 
mit der Bemerfung aufgefordert, dab otejer ihr betder- 
feitiger Gott gefommen ift, nicht nach Wnjehen der Ber- 
fom zu berufen, jondern Zu denjenigen, welche der Geift 
zubereitet hat ἢ. Die Wulunft Gottes im Fleijde und 
fein Wandelu unter den Menjdhen wird hier als eine 
Der Vergangenheit angehdrige gejchichtlide Dhatjache 
porausgelept, die αἴ jolche von ebtonitijc denfenden 
Mainnern τε nidt anerfaunt wurde 2). Der Ver- 
faffer dev Bwilfapl. aber giebt den Gert de3 Barnabas: 
briefe3 im der Weile wieder, dak ev von Gott in der 
Gegenwart ausjagt, oderjelbe fomme nicht nach Wn- 
fehen dev Perfon zu berufen *), und fo das Befennt- 
nid der Mtenjchwerdung Gottes vermeidet. Ueberhaupt 


1) Μήποτε ob μὴ φοβηϑήσονται τὸν ἐπ᾽ ἀμφοτέροις ϑεόν" 
ὅτι ἦλϑεν οὐ κατὰ πρόσωπον χαλέσαι, ἀλλ᾽ ἐφ᾽ Ove τὸ πνεῦμα 
ἡτοίμασεν. 

2) Ἐβιωναῖοι δὲ ὁμολογοῦσι μὲν τὸν χόσμον ὑπὸ τοῦ ὄντως 
ϑεοῦ γεγονέναι, τὰ δὲ περὶ τὸν Χριστὸν ὁμοίως ta Kyoivda 
χαὶ Καρποχράτει μυϑεύουσιν. Philosoph. 1. ὁ. Cf. Iren. adv. 
haer. IV, 23, 4 1. I, 26, 2. 

3) Οὐ γὰρ ἔρχεται χατὰ πρόσωπον χαλέσαι. 


584 RKrawugcety, 


wird in der Bwolfapl. ote Gottheit Chrifti nivgend3 
unsiweidentiq gelehrt. Dejus Chriftus wird einerjcits 
Der Knesht Gottes (παῖς Feov, ebenjo wie David, 
IX, 2, 3, X, 2, 3), andeverjetts aber aud der Herr 
(3. B. VILL, 2 uw. bfter), ja (in dev trinitarifden Dauf- 
formel VII, 1, vgl. XVI, 4) auch wohl der Sohn 
Gottes genannt: da indes auch die Chioniten, objcdon 
fie Sejum fiir ectnen blofen Menfchen erflarten, welder 
nur wegen feiner Gefegeserfitllung Chriftus heife ἢ), 
fowobhl die trinitarijdhe Daufformel?) als auch οἷς Feter 
dDeS ,,LageS des Herrn” *) beibebhielten, veiden diefe 
Bezeichnungen nicht Hin, um dte Rechtglaubigfeit des 
Verfajjers der Bwilfapl. wachzuweijen; ja felbjt der 
Subelruf ‘Qoawe τῷ ϑεῴ AaBid in dev Crwartungs- 
feier der ReichSsvollendung (X, 6) Hilft tiber dtefen Bwet- 
fel nicht hinweg, da πα dem Bujammenhange an Chri 
jtus, deffen Wiederfunft nirgends offen angefiindigt wird 
(j. XVI, 5—8 τι. vergl. dazu Matth. 24, 30), nicht 
nothwendig zu denfen ift, die ungewshulice Formel ἢ) 
vielmebr recht wobl auf denjenigen bezogen werden 
Faun, αἰ deffen Knecht 31 Wnfang dev Feierlidfeit Da- 
vid (υἷε auch Sejus) genannt wurde (IX, 2) und wel- 
cher im Verlaufe dev euchariftijden Gebete 3u wieder- 
Holter Mtalen und nod) ganz furz vor dem fragliden 
Subelvufe um dite Herbeifiihrung dev Meidsvollendung 
augerufen worden ijt IX, 4u. X, 5). @Angefichts diefer 
Sadlage geht ἐδ nicht wohl an, beim Verfaffer der 


1) Philosoph. 1. ὁ. 

2) Hteronymus in Lueif. ο, 9. 

3) Eujfebius, H. B. III, 28 ed. Lammer. 

4) ©. ἴδεν diejelbe Wd. Harnad, a. a. Ὁ. gu X, 6. 


Ueber die fog. Bwoslfapoftellehre. 585 


QBwilfapl., dev wie von der Menjdwerdung und Cr- 
Lofung jo ard) vor der Geiftesjendung durchweg {dyiweigt, 
eine Hinneigung zum Montanismus anzunehmen; wohl 
aber fithren die angegebenen Cingzelheiten, mozu πο der 
wabhridheinlice Gebrauch des Cvangeliums der Iazaraer 
und Chioniten (7. 0.) und Nichtgebraudh der paulinijden 
und johanneifden Schriften fommt*), zu dem Crgebnis, 
Dap der BVerfafjer der Bwilfapl. wabhricheinlich ciner 
ebionitifierenden Ricdtung huldigte und fomit an dem 
Nuffewunge, welchen die Sefte der Chioniten gegen das 
ahr 200 nabm *), wohl nicht unbetheiligt mar. 


1) Mah F Probft, Lehre und Gebet in den 3 erft. chriftt. 
SFahrh., 1871, S. 182, diirfte auferdem die Weifung VII, 4, dak 
Der Taufling ein oder atvei Tage vor dev Taufe faften jo, auf 
Vertwandt}haft mit Ehionitismus deuten, Bal. auch, was XIII, 
3—7 liber die nur durch ifr Vetragen beglaubigten bropheten als 
nunmehrige Hohepriefter und ἴδεν die ihnen gufommenden Crit 
ling3gaben gejagt wird. Doch verbietet die milde Behandlung 
Der Speifjeverbote (VI, 8) joie die Annahme der anti-jiidi}dhen 
saftenorduung (VIII, 1), an jchroffen Cbionitismus gu denfen. 

2) Die Partei der gnoftifchen Ebioniten erhielt um jene Beit 
ijre Clementinijdmen Homilien; den vulgiren Chiont- 
ti8imus aber vertrat twenig fpater al theologijder Schriftiteller 
der Vibeliiberjeger Gymmadhus. GS. Ad. SGshliemann, 
die Clementinen, 1844, S. 476 ἢ. Bgl. auferdem das Wuftreten 
de Blaftus fowie des Theodotus des Gerbers in 
Rom um das Gahr 192 und die fich anjchlieBenden dortigen Be- 
wegungen. (Der damalige rimijdhe Bijchof Victor erlieh nach 
Dem Pontificalbuche ἴδον den Tanjfvollgug eine ahuliche Beftim- 
mung, twie fie fic) in den anti-ebionitifden Verordnungen fand. 
Dev Gerber aus Byzanz aber diirfte, wenn jammtlice alten 
Nahridten itber ihn und feine Schiiler — die Angaben de libellus 
synodicus in BVerbindung mit Eujebius H. E. V, 19 ff. nicht 
ausgenommen — naher gepritft und mit Sezugnahme auf die ποις 
entoedte Schrift beleuchtet twerden, leicht αἵδ᾽ dev bislang unge- 
nannte Autor der Brwolfapl. 4u begeichnen jein, dev nach Wbfafjung 
Diejev fetner Erftlingsjdvift ebenfowohl fihig war, eine Beit lang 


586 Krawugety, 


Die der Bwolfapl. 3 Grunde Liegende altere Verord- 
ning aber, die im Sinne ihrer Cutftehungszeit 1) als 
,atizebionitifd” zu bezetchnen fein wird, bat anfdeinend 
qrade in dent Whjchnitte, im weldem fie vor einer ab- 
weidenden und zur Wufldjung fiihrenden Lehre warnte, 
die bedeutendfte Aenderung und Wbfitrzung erlitten, Wus 
der jchrviftgemagben *) ,Dankjagung und Broobrehung” 
iff παῷ XIV, 1 (vgl. IX, 3 uw. 4) cine , Brodbredung 
und Dankagung” geworden, in tweldher des Vetdens und 
Sterbens Chrifti feine Crwahnung gejdieht, die Brones- 
geftalt al3 ein Borbdild der mod) erft zerftreuten, aber 
einft in der Endzeit zujammenzubringenden Gemeinde 
Gottes aufgefabt wivd (IX, 4; val. X, 5) und tiber- 
haupt an die Stelle einer mit dem Genup der Cuchaz 


alS erfter Raffenrendant dev montanijftijden Prophetic au fungieren, 
al auch, mit Mtontanus ποίει gu Hterapolis und An- 
Hialus firchlich verurtheilt, aus dem Kreije der Montanijten, 
Derert Glaubensridtung er ohnehin nicht theilte, ploglich gu vere 
jchwinden, αἵ auch Hiernach daheim in der Verfolgung Chriftum 
au verleugnen, abermals jpurlos gu verjchivinden, um in kon als 
Sophift aufautreten, und fcblieBltch eine ebiomittjche Gecte gu ftif- 
ten, deren Wnhanger durd Vejoldung thres Bijchofs MNatalis jo- 
wie durch gahlreiche Wbanderungen der heiligen Schrift ihrem 
Meifter wiirdig nachfolgten.) 

1) Spater, al8 die ebtonitijde Bewegung bereits feftere Form 
augenommen und der chrijtlichen Taufe und Sonntagsfeter vom 
Ebionitismus, welcher dteje Ueberlieferungen beibehielt, feine Ge- 
fahy mehr drohte, hatte eine anti-ebionitijde Verordnung, bejon- 
Dev8 wenn dabei nur der gefahrdete Glaube und nicht auch eine 
lible Vertwaijung der Gemeinden in BSetvacht gefommen ware, aller= 
dings einen anderen Yuhalt erfordert. Um jo ει τον fonnte der 
Verfaffer dev Bwolfapl. das zu jeiner Bett in mandher Hinfidt 
bereitS veraltete Gchriftftiice ungeachtet der entgegengejebten Len- 
Dens auf jeine Weije benugen. 

2) Val. Mtatth. 26, 26; Marc. 14, 22; Luc. 22, 19; 1 Cor. 
11, 24. 


Ueber die jog. Biwolfapoftellehre. 587 


riftie {chliependen Gedachtnipfeier de3 vollbradhten Gr- 
(Hfungsopfers cine erft nach) dem Genuk (wera τὸ su- 
πλησθῆναι, wie es X, 1 heigbt,) ihren Hodhbepuntt er- 
reicende Crivartungsfeter de Weltgeridhts und der 
Neichsvollendung tritt, οἷς fie fitr ebionitt}dhe Gemein- 
den Bediirfuis fein modte. Bteht man deShalb die im 
zmetten Bfatf’ [hen FJrenadus-Fragmente ἢ 
evindbuten ,,deutero-apoftolijden BVerorduingen” Herbet, 
aus welchen die Leter unter Wndrem wiffen fonnten, 
DAB dev Herr eine neue Darbringung im neuen Bunde 
etngejebt babe gemap der Weiffagung de3 Mtalachias 
pon dem reinen Opfer aller τίς 2), fo geht ἐδ nicht 
ὍΘΙ an, jene BVerordnungen in dev Bwolfapl. jelbft 
IMiederzufinden, da in LeBterer zwar (XIV, 3) die Weif- 
faguing de8 Malachias in Verbindung mit der Sonn- 
tagSfeier angefiihrt, aber der Cinjebung eines neutefta- 
mentliden Opfers nirgends angsoritdlic) gedacht wird 
und δοὼ die ,,3Zweiten Veroronungen der Wpoftel”, in- 
Dem Το wohl nicht gerade auf fie befonder3 binge: 
wiejen twitrde, Hieritber fic) deutlicher ausgedritcdt haben 
miiffen, αἵ fjelbft die neuteftamentlicen beiligen Schrif- 
ten, 3. Ὁ. Matth. 26, 26 ff. oder Luc. 22, 19 f. Daz 
gegen erjdeint e3 nicht unmiglic), dap die der Biwdlfapl. 
zu Grunde Liegenden Vorfdhriften, deren euchaviftijde 
Gebete in der Bwilfapl. ja nur wmwvollftdndig mitgethetlt 
werden, behufs Whwehr de Chioniti3mus die Stiftung 


1) S. Irenaei Opp. ed. Ad. Stieren, I, 854; Oilgenfeld, 
VRC. 0. 18; 

2) Οἱ ταῖς δευτέραις τῶν ἀποστόλων διατάξεσι παρηχολου- 
ϑηχότες ἰσασι τὸν Κύριον νέαν προσφορὰν ἐν τῇ καινῇ διαϑήχῃ 
χκαϑεστηχέναι xata τὸ Modayliov κτλ. 


588 RKrawuts cy, 


DeS neuen Bundes und οἷς Cinjebung des neuen Opfers 
nachoriiclic) Hervorgehoben haben. Wielletcht alfo find 
e3 Ddiefe durch die Biwolfapl. uns grofentheils wieder- 
gegebenen anti-ebionttifden Beftimmungen, welche etuft 
Den Vitel: ,,Deutero-apoftolijdhe Verordnungen” firhrten. 


ay 
Die ervfte Aufnahme der Bwsilfapoftellehre 
im Dev Vaterzett. 
Waren οἷς obigen WAufftellungen itber die Geiftes- 
rvichtung deS Verfatjers der Biwslfapl. zutreffend, fo ift 
eS nidt wabricheinlid), dap feine Wrbeit in firdliden 


/ Kretjen jofort beifalliqg aufgenommen worden fet. Sn 


Wubetracht de Umftandes, dak der Verfajfer wohl erft 
it dev zivetten Halfte des gweten Gabrhunderts uno 
sar vermuthlic) in Balaftina oder einem benacdbarten 


| Lande al Sebriftiteller aufgetreten {{| 1}, erjcetut nun 


Clemens von Wlerandrien als der nadfte 
Beuge, welder uns itber die angeregte Frage vielleicdht 
Musfunft 3u geben vermag. Diefer aber unternimmt ἐδ 
am Scdhlup feines Padagogen (IIL, 12, p. 304 sqq. ed. 
Potter.) , felbft gleidfam εἶπαι ,Unterridt der 
Wpoftel fiir Meulinge” yu Liefern oder vielmebr, 
von welder Wrt der durch die Wpoftel er- 
theilte NeulingSunterrigt gewefen fet 
(οἵα dv ἀποστόλων ἡ παιδαγωγία), quellenmapig angu- 
geben. Biehen wiv aljo δίοεῖς Grirterungen πάθεν in 
Betracht. 


1) Dies ergiebt fich wenigften3 αἵδ᾽ die nadh{tliegende Annahme, 
Da dev Wutor anjceinend den Pastor Hermae fennt und fich des 
Hebraderevangeliums bedient. 


Ueber die jog. Bwolfapoftelfehre. 589 


. Buvdrderft erfahren wir von der ΘΠ de3 Wau- 
tors, den bisher auf οἷς Laufe Vorbereiteten bet ihrer 
Cutlajjung aus dem paddagogijdhen Unterridte einen 
furzen Subeqgriff der Heilslehre gletdhjam mit auf den 
Weg zu geben und ifnen aus der Heiliqen Schrift die 
einfadyen Gebote mitzutheilen, welde fie vor den Wee 
gen DeSSrrthums bewahren und auf dem guten 
Wege erhalten fonnen. Cinen erften Gubegriff all 
Diejer Lebensregelu bilde aber der Wusjprud des Herrn 
(Luc. 6, 31): , Wie thr moll t, dak eud die Men- 
fhdenthun, fothbuetaudhibribuen.” Dod 
fei ἐδ miglicd, alle Gebote auch in zwet Worte zujam- 
menzufatjen, ndmlid) in dte beiden Worte von der 
Gottes: und Nadftenliebe. Da inde dod 
auch in’8 Cinzelne dev Gebote eingegangen werden miiffe, 
ἴο Diene dazu Der mojatj/meDelalog mit jeiner 
Stindenaufzahlung: Ou follft nicht ehebrechen, nicht 
GHgendienft tretben, nicht Knaben jdhanden, nicht fteh- 
fen, nidyt faljfdes Beugnis geben; οὔτε deinen Vater 
und deine Mutter u. 7. w.” Dies fet zu beachten und 
was jonft gemah den Sdhriftlejungen befoblen werde. — 

Hterin befteht der erfte von den dret Theilen de3 
beabjichtigten Gchlupunterridts. Wie man leicht be- 
merit, verfolgt Clemens dabei wejentlich denjfelben Ge- 
Danfengang, welchen die der Bwdlfapl. 3u Grunde liegende 
Darftellung dev zivet Wege einhiclt. Denn aud) diefe 
ftellte im WUnterjdhiede vom Lichtwege des Barnabas: 
bricfe3 die beiden LiebeSgebote voran und LteR zur 
naberen Erfldrung dervjelben jofort die Verbote der zivet- 
ten mofaifden Gelegestafel folgen. Die nddftliegende 
Vermuthung lautet deshalb dahin, dak unjer Witor eben 


590 Krawubcty, 


dDiefe dltere Darjtellung der zwet Wege hier vor Wugen 
gehabt habe. Doch lapt fic nicht verfennen, dah die 
Wusfibrungen de$ Wlevandriners mit dtejer Darjtellung 
FeineSwwegs vollfommen iibereinitimmen: er jchicdt den 
beiden Liebesgeboten noc) die Worte: ,,wie thr wollt 
u. j. ww.” voraus und ermabnut fdblieblih (nad Dtatth. 
19, 17 ff.) auch noc) ausdritdlich) das vterte der Behu- 
gebote, objcyon beide Sdyriftterte in den alteren , 8tet 
Wegen” anjceinend fehlten. Der Anjclug unferes 
Wutors an jeine Vorlage ift demnach offenbar fein augs- 
nabmslos firenger und deshalb lapt fich immerbin die 
Moglichfett nicht befiretten, dab die Bwoilfapl. jelbft mit 
ἔρτουν Darjtellung der zwet Wege (objdon dann die 
AWbweicdung vom Gedanfengange des alerandrinijden 
Lehrers eine nod) gripere ijt), bier als Vorlage gedient 
hat.  Gedenfalls aber erjcheint ungiweifelhaft, dap die 
eile Oder Die andere Darjtellung dev zwei Wege (wenn 
nicht beide zugletch) unjerem Wutor vorjcdwebte, da feine 
Crwahnung des GHigendienftes und der Knabenjchan- 
Dung 1) unter den Verboten der ziwetten mojfaifden Ge- 
jebeStafel nur auf diele Weite erflarlid ijt. — 

Der giweite Gheil des Schlupuntervichts fodann bringt 
elute Meihe vow Wusjpriicen der PBropheten und Chrifti, 
welche tiber den Qnbhalt und Gedanfengang der alteren 
nowet Wege” hetradhtlid) Hinausgehen. Nimmt man 
deshalb an, dak Clemens diefe Legtgenannte Sdrift 


1) Glemen3 von Wlerandrien nennt szwifden den Defalogs- 
worten die Knabenjdhandung auch in der Cohort. c. 10, p. 85 und 
im Paed, II, 10, p. 223 (vglf. Strom. III, 4, p. 527): man erfieht 
hieraus , wie jehr eine von den beiden vertvandten Darftellungen 
Der gwet Wege jeinem Gedachtniffe geldufig war. 


Ueber die fog. Bwilfapoftellehre. 591 


bisher vor Augen hatte, jo tft zu jcblieBen, dah er cine 
Stoffvermehrung fiir witnjdhenswerth eradtete und dab 
injofern οἷς Bwolfapl. mit ihrem veicheren Snbhalte 
feinen Betfall gefunden haben dtivfte. Diefe Lebtere 
Vermuthung gewinnt nod dadurcd an Annehmbarfeit, 
dap die Wusjpritche, welde auf den Defalog folgen, 
nidt obue Bezugnahbme auf die Swailfapl. ausgewablt 
{cheinen. Wenigftens wird als erfter jchriftgemager Be- 
fehl, welcher neben den Defalogsworten beobachtet wer- 
den joll, die Mtahnung de8 Yejatas 1, 16—18 ange: 
fiibrt: ,Waihet euc und merdet vein u. }. w., 
fernet Gutes thun τ. 1. w.” An zwetter Stelle 
gejchieht des Gebet ὃ διάδημα jowie an dritter des 
Saftens, wobet dte Mufforderung, Gutes zu thun durch 
Uebung der Barntherzigtcitswerfe, betdemal fic) wieder- 
holt. Hiernad) aber fommt die Mede auf die Opfer, 
um unter Verwerfung de altteftamentlicen Wltardtenftes 
als gottgefdlliges Opfer den φευϊπίν τίει Get ft 
und das Herz, weldmes jeinen Bildner pretft, 
Hinguftellen. — Bergleicht man mun Hiermit die BVor- 
{chviften in Dev siweiten Halfte der Bwslfapl. itber die 
Taufe (VIL), tiber Faften und Beten (VHD und tiber 
die enchariftijden Gebete IX u. X), fo lapt fich die 
Mbglichfeit nicht Leugnen, dap die obigen Ausipritde 
mit Mitcjicht auf dieje Voridhriften, die wegen der Wr- 
candisciplin im Badagogen noch nicht mitthetlbar jcdeinen 
founten, zujammengeftellt morden feten. — Dev nadftz 
folgende Wusjpruc) allerdings ent}pricdt nicht in gleider 
Weife Dem πάει! Verte dev Bwslfapl., welche nun- 
mehr (XI, XILu. XLT) von den Wanderprediger u. }. tw. 
Handelt. Wuf diefen Wbidhnitt nimumt unjer Autor nidt 


509 Krawugcty, 


Besug, deSgletchen auch nicht auf die noch folgenden 
Vorfdriften tiber die eudyariftijdye Sonntagsfeier (X1V) 
und liber die Beftellung von Cpijfopen und Diafonen 
(XV, Lu. 2). Crit bet der Vorjdhrift θεν die briider- 
lide Zurechtweijung (XV, 3) treffen Swolfapl. und 
Schlupuuterrict des PBadagogen wieder zujanmmen, {1|: 
Dem der WAlerandriner an die Wusfpriiche ber das Opfer 
Den Lert anreiht: , Wenn dein Bruder fid ver: 
fehlt hat, vermeije e8 thm” uj. w. (uc. 17,3 F.). 
Mber diefe Wbweidung vom Gedankengange der Bwilfapl. 
evilart fic) wobl daraus, dap einerjetts die Vor) drift 
liber die euchariftijhe Sonntagsfeter durcdy das vom 
Opfer Gejagte erledigt und anderjetts die Sage {θεν 
Wanderprediger und odergl. jowie itber Cpijfopenbe- 
ftellung τι. f. Ὁ. nicht bierbergehdrig jcheinen fonnten. 
Die Vermuthung, dap ote vorliegenden Sdhriftterte im 
Hinblicl auf die ziweite Halfte der Bwslfapl. ausgewablt 
“worden jeten, wird fic) deshalb imimerhin nicht jo Letcht 
abiweijen Lajjen. Dazu fommt, dak auch die noch fol- 
genden Wusipritche mit der Bwolfapl. zujammentreffen, 
indem wir unter Andevem mun nod dem Gebote der 
Setudesliebe und der milligen Cutgegen- 
nahbme von Unbilden (Luc. 6, 27—29) joie der 
Crmabuung zur πο δι ἐπ Behandlung der 
Dienftboten begequen. Beide Stticle entipredhen den 
beiden Cinjdaltungen, welche in dev erften Halfte dev 
Swolfapl. (Lu. IV) zur alteren Darftellung de$ Lebens- 
weges Hhingugefommen find, jo dap thatjachlid im vovr- 
— Liegenden zweiten Theile des von Clemens ertheilten 
»CMlupunterridhts”, nachdem im erften Bheile oer Haupt- 
inalt dev dlteren in der Zwilfapl. verwendeten ,, Swet 


Ueber die fog. Brwodlfapoftellehre. 593 


Wege" furz angegeben worden, alle hiernach nod unbe- 
rlidfictigten Wbjcnitte der Bwoilfapl., abgejehen von 
mehreren wohl begreiflicen Auslafjungen (j. v.), fic 
mehr oder minder augenfallig vertreten finden. Diefe 
Rhatjadhe dart nicht wohl fiir zufallig gelten, um fo twe- 
tiger, alS die zulebt erwabute Grmahnung zur menjfd- 
lichen Behandlung der Dienfthoten ausnahmsweije nicht 
mit Schriftworten gefdteht und deShalb auch nicht Lediq- 
lich alS Beijpiel eines jchriftmapigen Befehls, fondern 
pielmehr vornehmlich aus ἡ: auf den noch zu be- 
rithrenden Whichnitt der Brwolfapl., welder diefe Cr- 
mahbmung enthalt (LV, 10), bergejebt worden fein wird 

Vagt fich aber hiernach faum siweifeln, dab Clemens 
pou Alerandrien die Bwaslfapl. fennt und im siweiten 
Cheile jeines padagogijdhen Sdlupunterridhts vor Augen 
hat, jo folgt davaus zundcdhit doc nicht mehr, als daf 
ihm cin Hinausgehen tiber den Gedanfenfreis der alteren 
Darjtellung der zwet Wege witnjdenswerth erfdien und 
Die Rwslfapl. infofern jetnen Beifall Ταῦ. Denn dah 
ihm auch diefe dlteve, evjt im dev Bwolfapl. erweiterte 
Darftellung bei Whfaffung de3 Padagogen befaunt war 
und vorjchwebte, tit mit vorwiegender Wabhrj εἰμ! οἰ 
Daraus 3u entnehmen, δα 8. der erfte Gheil jeines Sclup- 
unterricdts Leniglichh Stticke der Alteren Darftellung απ: 
fiihrt und dag die von dev Bwodlfapl. in den alteren 
Lebensweg eingejchalteten Spritche erft im ziveiten Theile 
und zwar οὐ παῷ den itbrigen der Bwolfapl. etgen- 
thitmliden Vorjchriften an die Reihe fommen. Wenigz 
ften3 beweilt diejes Verfahren, dak Clemens die alteren 
Beftandtheile im dev vom Verfajfer der Ziwolfapl. ge- 
gebenen Darjtellung der swet Wege yon den jiingeren 

Theol. Quartalfdrift. 1884. Heft. IV. 38 


504 RKrawubety, 


erft bier bingugefiigten Cinfdhaltungen recht wohl unter- 
{cheidet: etn Umftand, welder fic) am lLeichteften durd 
die Wunahme erflart, dak unjer Autor von dem Vor- 
handenjein jener alteren Beftandtheile αἵδ᾽ einer bejon- 
deren Schrift bereits damals Kenntnis hatte. Reined- 
wegs aber berechtiqt der vorliegende sweite Theil de3 
Schlubunterridhts zu der Annabme, dak Clemens von 
Wlerandrien mit dem Bubhalte der Bwodlfapl. ttberhaupt 
einverftanden gewefen jet. Bunddft war ihm aud diejer 
θα nod) nicht umfatjend genug. Bwifden dem 3.118: 
jprucje von der britderliden Surechtweijung und dem 
Gebote der Feindesliebe bringt deshalb der Sdhlugunter- 
ridbt noch eine bunte Methe von Sdhriftlehren fiir Sil dz 
ner, Bollpadter, Gerihtsbeamte und Lanod- 
wirthe, bestiglih der Unterthanenpflidt, de3 
Cide3 und der iblen Nadhtragung, gegen die 
Liigner und Hodmithigen und, nach Seligprei- 
jung dev Barmberzigen, gegen den Zorn, wozu 
{pater nocd) Bemerfungen tiber GebetSvertrauen, 
Chrgeiz, Bupfertigkeitt und Wohlthatig- 
Feit bingufommen. Hinwieder tibergeht Clemens einige 
der Rwolfapl. cigenthiimlide Stiidke, wie namentlid) die 
Ausfiihrungen tiber dite priifungslofe WAlmofengewahrung 
(in δ. I dev Zwilfapl.) und tiber die volljtandige oder 
dom thunlichjte Beobadtung der Gebote des Herrn (in 
4, VI). Und will man in diefem Verhalten nod feine 
bejondere Wbficht evfennen, objchon es jehr nabe liegt, 
hier eine Verjchiedenheit dev beiderfeitigen WAnfichten als 
Grund de3 Stillichweigens zu vermuthen, jo macht fid 
ber Standpuntt δὲ WAlevandriners im Gegenjage zur 
Biwolfapl. dod wenigitens bet der Frage iiber dite brite 


Ueber die jog. Bwilfapoftellehre. 595 


dDerlide Zurecdhtweijung nachorticlich genug geltend, um 
eine BVilligung der Bwilfapl. al8 folder nicht weiter 
fiir wahrideinlich 3u balten. Denn nachdoem Clemens 
{chon durch den oben eriwdhnten Wusjprudh: ,Wenn 
Dein Bruder jid verfehlt hat, vermeije e8 
ibm und, wenn ev in fic) gegangen, verzethe e3 ihm: 
wenn ev jiebenmal am Lage jid verfebhlt 
hat gegen dich und fiebenmal fic) mit dem Belenntnis 
der Bupe an dich wendet, vergzethe e3 ihm”, die Lehre 
der Schrift dahin angegeben hat, dak bet Verlegungen 
der Bruderliebe neben der Hauptpflidt dev Verjihnlid- 
feit auch die Mebenpflidt der Zuredtweijung obwaltet, 
fommt er nad der Crmahnung beszitglic) oer Dtenft- 
boten nocdmals auf die Behandlung der fich verfehlen- 
Den Briider zuriice und erflart, dag man foldhe Briider 
gurechtweijen und (furgzineg, gleichjam) mit dem Stecen 
siichtigen, nict aber (Langjam oder andauernd qualen 
wid) martern jolle. Jet δὲ καί, Lautet jeine Erflarung 
Lc. p. 307, τοὺς πλημμελοῦντας τῶν ἀδελφῶν ov κο- 
λάξειν, ἐπιτιμᾷν δέ" ὁ yao φειδόμενος, φησί (Prov. 
18,.24), τῆς βακτηρίας ξαυτοῦ, μισεῖ τὸν ξαυτοῦ υἱόν. 
Man wird dieje Worte faum anders, als eben ange- 
geben, auslegen finnen, fofort aber and) cinrdumen 
nitfjen, Dap diefelben eine Mtibbilliqung deSjentgen ent- 
halten, was die Biwolfapl. bet Verlebungen der Bruder- 
liebe vorjchreibt, indem jie XV, 3 alljettiges Sdweigen 
in Gegenwart de3 Uebelthdters bis nad erfolgter Be- 
fehrung de3 Legteren zur Bflicht macht. | 
Wher noc mehr. Nachdem im erjten Dheile des 
Schluguntervidhts der Jubhalt der alteren , Bwet Wege“ 
als Kern aller Gebote angefiihrt und im 3ziwveiten Dheile 
aie te 


596 Krawugcty, 


auf die tibrigen Sttide der Biwoilfapl. naber cingeganger 
worden, erflart Clemens eS fiir nothwendig, besiiglid) 
dDiejeS ziweiten Theiles, deffen Wusfpritche das 4weite, 
nicht durch Mojpes, jondern durch die Wpoftel ver- 
fiindigte Gefeg bilden, auc) nod) anzugeben, in welder 
Form die Apoftel ihrerfetts dtejes zmweite Gejeg zur Bez 
Cehrung und Erziehung der Meulinge ausgedritdt haben. 
Von folcher Wrt”, heipt e$ beim Uebergange vom siwet- 
ten 3um dritten Theile des Sdhlufunterridts, 1. ο, p. 307 sq., 
»{iud die Gejege des Logos, die Worte δε Drojftes, 
nicht in ftetnerne, vom Finger de$ Herrn bejchriebene 
Tafeln, fondern in dte allein ungzerftirbaren Mten}chen- 
Herzen eingezetduet. Deshalb ja wurden zerjdymettert 
die Dafelu dev Herzensharten, damit die Glaubensqe- 
bote (at πίστεις) der Unmiindigen in zartempfainglicde 
Sinnesvermigen ecingepragt wiirden.  Betde Gefege jez 
doc) Ddienten dem Logos Zur erjten erztehlichen Unter- 
weijung der WMtenjdhett, das eine durch Mtojes, das 
andere durch) die Wpoftel. Won welder Art nun die 
erfte erzteblidye Unterivetiung auch durd) die Wpoftel war, 
auch beziiglih diejer Form jceint mir eine Crbrte- 
rung nothwendig”*). Hierauf folgen als Beifptele apo- 
ftolijcher Wnforderungen die Sebhriftftellen Cphej. 4, 25. 
262202 τ 8.910 9 2 5) Df 1 2, 2 ΟΠ aes oes 
7. 9; Gal.5, 25. 26; 6, 2. 7. 9; 1 Theff. 5, 13. 14. 
15;619.<20, 21, 22; ΠΟ. "5... 01 1 ine Ga 
8:6, 2 und ton. 12,2829, 003/11. 12:°13 pvorberr 


” Ν \ 2 ν᾿ > f 
1) ἄμφω δὲ τὼ νόμω διηκόνουν τῷ “όγῳ εἰς παιδαγωγίαν 
- 3) \ Ν ) 2) 
τῆς ἀνθρωπότητος, ὃ μὲν διὰ Μωσέως, ὃ δὲ δι’ ἀποστόλων. 
Ole γ᾽ οὖν χαὶ δ ἀποστόλων ἡἣ παιδαγωγία, ἀναγκαῖόν μοι 
δοχεῖ, καὶ περὶ tod εἴδους διαλεχϑῆναι τούτου. 


Ueber die fog. Biwslfapojtellehre. 597 


{chend Furze, jcdhwunghafte Sentenzen, deren Auswahl 
jedoch einen engeren Wnfdhlup an den θα" der Biwolf- 
apt. nicht erfennen fat. Was hat unjer Wutor mun 
mit Ddiefer Bujammenftelung paulinijher Sdyriftterte 
wohl beabfichtiqt? Und warum hat er diejelbe, nachdem 
ev bereits das Gejeb des MtojeS und das der WAypoftel 
inhaltlid) mitgetheilt hatte, noc [τ nothwendig er- 
achtet ὁ 

Bei der augenfdeinliden Bezugnahme auf den Sn- 
halt der Bwslfapl. im ziveiten Dheile des Schlupunter- 
ridchtS Lat ὦ der BVerjuch, mit den eigenen Worten 
Der Wpoftel zu zeigen, welche Form und Gejftalt der von 
Diejen ertheilte erfte evziehliche Unterricht nachweislid 
gehabt Hat, wohl nicht anders verftehen, al8 dag anc) 
Hier dte Mitdfidt auf dite Bwoilfapl. mabgebend war 
und, wie {chon im zwetten Dheile der Gnbhalt der ἴθ: 
teren feine vollfommene Buftimmung gefunden hatte, 
nun insbejondere dev Wujpruch diefer Schrift, als Lehre 
dev Wpoftel angejehen zu werden, feine gebiihrende Bu- 
ritdwetjung erhalten follte. Denn zwar erflart Clemens 
nicht ausdritcdlich, dab er dev neuer|dhienenen fogenanuten 
Bwolfapl. die alte biblijde Wpl. entgegenftellen wolle, —- 
ey vedet itberhaupt nicht von der jeinem Getfte vor- 
{webenden Schrift, jet e3, weil er nicht zum weiteren 
Befanuntwerden derjelben beitragen wollte, fei ἐδ, weil 
er Ddtejelbe nicht fitr widhtig genug Hielt, um offen witder- 
legt 3u werden, — aber thatjachlichh hat er fenes Bor- 
haben ausgefiihrt und dadurd ohne Zweifel erreidt, 
dah feine Schiiler gentigend belehrt waren, um den Werth 
Und die Bedeutung de der Bwslfapl. dbeigelegten Litels 
richtig beurtheilen xu founen. Cine gitnftige AXufnahme 


5OR Krawugefy, 


dicjer Schrift als folder von Seiten de3 alexandrinijdhen 
Lehrers wird demnach nicht anzunehmen fein 1). — 
Wer mn ποῦ die erften 32 RKapitel im 
jicbenten Bude der apoftol. Conftittutionen 
mit der Swilfapl. im Cingelnen vergleicht, wird finden, 
dah der Verfaffer des in diejen Kapiteln enthaltenen 
und der Machwelt aufbewahrten ,,Sitten|piegel3” den 
Tert der Bwolfapl. dazu benugt hat, um eine etgene, 
nod) durch zabhlreide Bwijhenbemerfungen beretcherte 
Lehre der Wyoftel zu Liefern, ohne durch den Vitel 
feiner Vorlage fic von manderlet Wbweidhungen, welche 
theil8 der verjchiedene Standpuntt, theils die fortge- 
jchrvittene Zeit erforderte, abbalten zu Lajjen, aber and) 
ohne jeine Vorlage offen zu befampfen oder auch nur 


1) Ueber das Schriftcitat aus der fiinften Anfprace der zwei 
Wege Strom. I, 207. o. Auch die VBeriihrung mit dem erften 
euchariftijden Gebete dev Brwilfapl. in der Schrift Quis dives 
salv, § 29, p. 952 ed. Potter. (cf. Paedag. I, p. 107) ijt eher 
aus einer unmittelbaren Sefannt}haft des Wlerandriner3 mit den 
betveffenden GebetSworten, welche anjceinend aus der firchlicden 
Ueberlieferung in die Bwodlfapl. iubergegangen und erft hier ebio- 
nitijc) verwafjert worden find, als aus einer Benubung der lebt- 
genannten Schrift herguleitten. Bgl. Wd. Harnad, aa. 0. 
au [X, 2, und Const. Ap. VII, 25, p. 208, 25 sq. (Clemens 
hatte vermuthlich einen Lert im Stnne wie: Εὐχαριστοῦμέν σοι, 
πάτερ ἡμῶν, --- ὑπὲρ τῆς ἁγίας ἀμπέλου Δαβίδ, --- ἧς ἐξεχύϑη 
τὸ τίμιον αἷμα --- ἡμῶν ent τὰς τετρωμένας ψυχάς.) Bryennios, 
aa. Ὁ. ©. 4, Anm., weift auferdDem auf Strom. V. 5, p. 664 
ed. Potter. hin, wo mit Serufung auf da8 Evangelium und die 
WUWpoftel jowte auf alle Gropheten Der fdmale Weg der Gee 
boteund Verbote und der breite, verderblidhe Weg 
Der Mifte und der ZBornmitthigfett erwahnt werden: 
doch LaBt fic) eine Besugnahme auf die Bwolfapl. in diefer an 
Matth. 7,13 u.14 fowie an den obigen Schlugunterricht evinnern- 
den Tertitelle nicht erfennen. 


Ueber die jog. Bwolfapojtellehre. 599 


zu ertodhnen. Um das Verfahren de Verfaffers twe- 
nigften3 durch einige Beifpiele yu verdeutlicen, fo Ffiigt 
der Sittenfptegel in dev Bejdhreibung des Lebensweges 
zu Der Weijung des Hervn, dem Bujdhlagenden aud) die 
andere Wange zu veichen, ftatt der nad Matth. 5, 48 
sar ftatthaften, aber nach Suc. 6, 36 dod auch der 
Crildrung bediirftigen Semerfung der Bwoslfapl.: ναι 
Du wirft vollfommen fein”, die wobhlbemejjenen Worte 
bei: ,,uicht als ob die Whwebhr verwerjflic) ware, jondern 
weil die Grtragung δὲ8 Bijen {habenswerther tft.” 
Const. Apost. (ed. P. A. de Lagarde, Lips. 1862) 
VIL, 1, p. 195, 15s. Dem AWnfinnen der Swslfapl., 
jedem Bittenden ohne Briifung der Beodtirftigkeit und 
Wiirdigteit zu geben, weicht der Sip. durch dte Bez 
merlung aus, dab Gott feine Sonne itber Boje und Gute 
aufgeben Laffe (Matth. 5, 45) und demnacdh allen (Ge- 
rechten und Ungeredhten) gegeben werden folle, dap aber 
dod (παῷ Gal. 6, 10) den Heiligen ein Vorzug gebiihve 
(ο, 1, p. 198, 21 sqq.). Mit dervjelben Umficdt lapt der 
Sip. im Legten Wbfchnitte des Lebensweges, wo die 
Bwolfapl. in auffalliger Weije das Befenntnis der Mien|dy- 
werdung Gottes vermetdet, dite betreffenden Worte tweg 
(c. 18, p. 204, 4) und iibergeht desgletdhen die Mach- 
tragsbemerfung dev Bwolfapl.: , Wenn du im Stanoe 
bift, da8 ganze Joc des Herrn zu tragen, fo wirft ou 
vollfommen fein; wenn aber nicht, thue was du fannit” 
(c. 19, p. 205, 19). Die eucharijtijchen Gebete Hinz 
wider werden im Sip. durch eine Anzahl Gage vervoll- 
ftandigt, in welden die Gottheit Seju fowte jeine Men} d= 
werdung und fein Crldjungstod offen und wtederholt 
zum Wusoruc fommen, doch jo, dap dabet nicht blos 


600 RKrawuycty, 


auf den Chionitismus (wie in ὁ. 25, p. 208, 16—28), 
fonder aud) auf den Marctonismus (vgl. c. 26, p. 209, 
15 544.) Bezug geuommen tft’). Wo dte Bwilfayl. 
die Vorjdrift enthalt, dak den PBropheten gejtattet weroe, 
das euchariftijche Gebet jo lang, als fie wollen, 3u 
verridten, fagt der Sip., dab auch den Priejtern dte 
Verridtung diefes Gebetes geftattet werden mige (ce. 26. 
p. 210, 2). Nach Uebergehung der Regeln fiir die 
Unterjhetdung der wahren und falf[cdhen PBropheten ere 
flart fic) der Sip. Lediglicd fiir Priifung dev Zutwandern- 
den Lehrer und bereitwillige WAufnahme der rechtglaubig 
befundenen mit der weiteren Empfehlung, den Wltar- 
dienern alle CrftlingSgaben joie den Wrmen alle 8601: 
ten zuzuwenden (c. 28 s., p. 210, 11-29). Besiiglie 


1) Der Verfafjer lapt die in dev Bwolfapl. erft nach dem 
Empfange der Cuchariftie angejebten Danfgebete an Ddiejer ord- 
nungswidrigen Stelle ftehen, vielletcht aus Miickfichten der Wrean- 
Disciplin. Gegen den Wearctontsmus und andere die WALeinherr= 
jchaft GotteS beftreitende Syjteme richten fic) auch eingelne Ge- 
nerfungen, welche an anderen Gtellen eingejtreut werden, wie bald 
im Unfange die Sage, dak der LVebensweg der natiirlice, der 
Todesweg dDagegen nur aus der Yachftellung des Yeindes hingu- 
gefommen jei (c. 1, p. 197, 16—19) und daf der LebenSweg fein an- 
Derer jet, als twelchen auch das Gejeb vorjchreibe, nadmlich Gott 
Den Herrn aus gangem Herzen und aus ganger Geele gu lieben 
alg den Cinen und WHeinigen (p. 178, 1—3). Um fo anjfalliger 
erjdeint e8, Da in den Gebeten, welche der Sip. vor dem Em- 
pfange anjegt, nur Lexrtworte eingejdaltet werden, welche ohne 
alle pdeutliche Bezugnahme auf andeve Verirrungen τοδί! als 
UWbivehr der ebionitijchen Denfwerje fic) fenngzetchnuen. Die BVer- 
muthung liegt hier wohl nage, dab died nicht Sufall, fondern auf 
Die anti-ebionitijhen Vorjchriften suvitcszufithren jet, auf welchen 
Die aweite Halfte der Biwodlfapl. fugt und welche der Verfaffer des 
Sjp. an Diejer Stelle fiir feine Textergdngung benugt haben 
Dlirjte. 


Ueber die jog. Bwodlfapoftellehre. — 601 


dev 3u beflellenden Bijchsfe, Briefter und Diafonen (70 
lautet nunmebr die Aufsahlung) wird das Crfordernif 
Der Nechtglaubigteit betgqefiigt, dagegen dite Geltung 
neben den Bropheten und Lehrern πἰ δι mehr erinahnt 
(c. 31, p. 211, 9—15). Die Vorjehrift endlich, yu 
einem Mtithruder, welcher Ὁ gegen einen andern ver- 
feblt hat, fein Wort zu rveden, bis er anderen Sinnes 
geworden, fallt im Sip. aus. 

Diefe mannigfadhen GCingzelhetten zeigen, dah der 
BVerfajfer des Shjp.8 bet jeinen Wbiveichungen von der 
Bwilfapl. nicht blos der vorgejdhritteneren Cutwicdlung 
dev firchliden BVerhaltniife und des denjelben ιν Seite 
gehenden Spradgebraudhes Rechnung getragen, fonudern 
aud) jeine gegenthetlige Denfweife und Glaubensridtung 
nicht ohne Umficht und feines Gefithl fiir alles in feiner 
Vorlage Bedentlide und Verfanglice geltend gemacht 
hat. Welches ΠΥ εἰ aber tiber den Werth der Bwslf- 
apl. ihn bierbet geleitet babe, (apt fitch am bejten aus 
der Schlupbemerfung zu den euchariftifcden Gebeten er- 
jeben. ,,Wenn einer fommt”, heibt e3 im Sfp. (c. 27, 
p. 210, 7—11), ,, und auf diefe Wetje den Dank betet, 
jo nehmet ihn auf als einen Schiiler Chriftt: wenn er 
aber eine andere Lehre verftindigt, als mwelde euch Chri- 
jtus durd) uns itbergeben bat, jo gejtattet etnem jolden 
nicht, den Dank zu beten; denn cin 7 older Ὁ ἐσ: 
bohOnt mehr Gott, alS dak er ihn verherr: 
Lidt” ἢ. Mit jo jcharfen Worten fonnte fich der Ver- 

1) “Ὑβοίζει γὰρ ὃ τοιοῦτος τὸν ϑεὸν ἤπερ δοξάζει. Der 
Verfafjer des Sip. ift dabei fein blinder Ciferer: will ev dod 2. Ὁ. 
bald nacher, dak auch dem guwandernden Grrlehrer das zum 
Leben MNothwendige gegeben und nur jein Grrthum nicht ange- 


602 Krawugcty, 


fafier de3 Sfp., nacdem er eben erft die eudhariftifden 
Gebete feiner Vorlage durch fehr wejentlide Rufage 
dogmatifdhen Yuhalts vervollitdndigt hatte, dock wohl 
wicht gegen jeden anderen Lehrgehalt des Dankgebetes 
evfldrven, wenn thm dte Bwilfapl. mit ihrer fo betradht- 
lid) abwetchenden Guchariftte fiir etwas bejjeres αἵδ᾽ fiir 
eit veriwerflides Madmwerk galt, das mehr zur Ver- 
hohuung als zur Verherrlidbung Gottes anleite. Gleidh- 
wohl wird die Bwilfapl. im Sip. nirgends απδου 
eviwadbut oder al verwerflich hingeftellt: vermuthlid) war 
fie Dew Lefern, welche der Sip. im Auge hatte, nicht 
πάρουν befanunt, fo dab e8 {chon hinreidhend erfdien, 
ebenfall3 eine Lehre ver Wpoftel, alB welche der Sfp. 
in feinen Cinleitungsworten (c.1) fich etnfithrt, zu ver- 
breiten und durch den reicheren Snbhalt der neuen Be- 
arbeitung jomie durd die obige jdarfe Warnung einer 
etina {πὰ drohenden Bevorzugung der alteren Schrift 
vorzubeugen. — 

Uebrigens tft die ert neuerdings als ,,Sitten|}piegel” 
bezeichnete Lehre der Wpoftel im fiebenten Buche der 
apoftol. Conftitutionen nidt die eingige Gegen|chrift, 
welche dev jlingft veriffentlichten ,ehre der δ] 
Wpoftel” entgegengeftellt wurde. Bjeudo-Cyprian 
(De aleatoribus c. 4) bevichtet von einer al8 Doctrinae 
apostolorum bezeidneten Schrift, im melder die (vom 
Sip. ftilljdhweigend tibergangenen) Vorjchriften unjerer 
Bwilfapl. gegen die Verleber der GBruderliebe (XIV, 2 


nommen und fetne Gebet8gemeinfdhaft mit ifm eingegangen werbde 
(c. 28); itberhaupt δεϊ ποι ihn woblitberlegte Rede und umfidh- 
tige Lehrbeftimmung aus. Sein obiges Verdict fallt deshalb um 
jo jdjwerer ἐπ᾿ Gewicht. 


Ueber die fog. Bwolfapoftellehre. 603 


τι. XV, 3) mit ecinander verjdimolzen und auf die Sti- 
rung der in der Kirche ndthigen Oronung bejdrantt 
werden 7), Diele felbjtandige Art und Weije der Um- 
avbeitung und Ridtightellung fiihrt in eine Beit σευ, 
in welder fowobhl das Bedtirfuip nach einer dervartigen 
Bearbeitung alS auc) dev jchriftftellerijdhe Schajfens- 
drang noc lebhaft genug war, um eine fo durchgreifende 
Neugeftaltung, wie tte in der vorliegenden Brobe fic 
verrath, 3u Dage zu fordern. C8 tft die Beit des dvitten 
und vierten Sabrhunderts , in welder dite Schrift Doc- 
trinae apostolorum entftanden fein wird, oder vielmebr, 
da bereits von Cufebius (H.E. IIL, 26 ed. Limmer.) 
unter den unedhten, jedoc) nicht von Havretifern ftammen- 
Den Schriften de neuen Teftaments ,,ote Schrift der 
Thaten Pauli, der jogenannte Hirt und die Offenbarung 
Petri und auferdem dev Brief mit dem IJtamen de3 
Barnabas und die jogenannten Lebhren der 
Npyoftel (καὶ τῶν ἀποστόλων ab λεγόμεναι Adayal)" 
augefithrt werden, die Bett des ovitten Jahrhunderts, 
an welche bier 3u denfen am nadjten liegt. Wenn daz 
her Athanajius in der Epistola fest. 39 (Opp. ed. 
Bened. I, 2, 963) al8 Bitcher, mwelde von den Vatern 
zum BVorlejen beim RKatechumenenuntervichte beftimmt 


1) 8. Cypriani opp. ed. Hartel III, 96. Et in doctrinis 
apostolorum, heifft e3 hier, werde erflart: Si quis frater delin- 
quit in ecclesia et non paret legi, hic nec colligatur, donec 
poenitentiam agat, et non recipiatur, ne inquinetur et impe- 
diatur oratio vestra. Die entjprechenden WWorte der Bwolfapl. 
lauten: Πᾶς δὲ ἔχων τὴν ἀμφιβολίαν μετὰ τοῦ Etaioov αὐτοῦ 
(resp. c. 15: παντὶ ἀστοχοῦντι χατὰ τοῦ ξτέρου) μὴ συνελϑέτω 
ὑμῖν (resp. μηδεὶς λαλείτω μηδὲ παρ᾽ ὑμῶν ἀχουέτω, ἕως οὐ 
μετανοήσῃ), ἵνα μὴ κοινωϑῇ ἡ ϑυσία ὑμῶν. 


604 Krawugcty, 


worden feten, wea. eine Jogenannte Lehre der 
NApoftel und den Hivten nennt (καὶ Adayn καλουμένη 
τῶν ἀποστόλων καὶ ὁ Ποιμήν), fo erjdheint e3 zwar 
nicht unmodglich, dak damals jdon fett Menfdengedenfen 
unjere (ebionitijivende) 2wilfapl. oder viclmehr ihre 
Darftellung der zwet Wege hier und da an Stelle des 
alifirdlicben diejen Gegenftand fiirzer behandelnden Unz 
tervichtsbitchleins den RKatechumenen vorgelejen und etn- 
gepragt wurde ἢ und dah mithin jene Schrift von 


1) Ginen gewifjen Anhalt fitr dtefe Vermuthung εἰπε der 
—«“Unftand 3u bieten, dak der Verfaffer des vierten Budes 
Derapoft Conftitutionen (c. 3, p. 115, 8sqq.) ein Webhe 
liber Diejenigen, twelde befigeu und unter Verheimlicung (hres 
Befibes) Whmnojen empfangen, αἵ einen Wusjprud desSHerrn 
begeichnet, wobet miglicher Weije die ahnliche Stelle im K. 1 der 
Swolfapl. fetnem Geifte vorjchwebte. Mur ijt dteje Vermuthung 
(|. BSryennio$s, a aO. S. ὃ, Anm. 18) deshalb wenig Ποῦ, 
weil doch nur eine Aehnlichfett der Terte obwaltet und insbefon- 
dere Das betreffende Webhe in der Bwolfapl. fich feineswegs als 
einen (unmtttelbaren) Wusjprucd) de8 Herrn darjtellt. Dazu fommt, 
᾿ δαβ Das dritte Bud dev apoft. Conftitutionen 
. (0, 4, p. 99, 1—4) in der Mehre vom Almojengeben den Stand- 
_puntt dex Bwolfapl. durchans nicht theilt und dag mithin, beide 
| Biicher αἵδ᾽ Arbeit deffelben Verfaffers gedacdht, auch im vierten 
Bude nicht unfere Bwilfapl., fondern eine Ueberarbeitung und 
Berichtiguig diejes Bitchleins, die alS Wtemoriertert in der Beit des 
RKatechumenats eingepragt jpdter leicht mit den ἰδ ὦ ἐπ Biichern 
aljammengeiworfen wurde, benugt jein Dditrfte. Wn den Sip. lapt 
{ich Hierbet fretlich nicht dDenfen, da devjelbe die verfangliden 386: 
merfungen der Bwolfapl. itber das Wlmojengeben ebenjo {ἘΠῚ τ εἰς 
gend unterdritct, wie die Vorjchriften wegen der Verlegungen der 
Bruderliebe. Wher wie die Doctrinae apostolorum in legterer 
Begziehung ftatt des Stillfdhweigens den Weg der Ueberarbettung 
und Berichtiqung eingejchlagen, founen fie dies recht wohl auch 
bet dem erjfteren Gegenftande gethan und fo den Text geliefert 
haben, auf weldem das dritte und vierte Buch dev apoftolijdhen 


Ueber die fog. Bwilfapoftellehre. 605 


Wthanafius gemeint fet. CScliebt ja doch die jcharfe 
Beurtheilung der Bwilfapl. im Sip. nicht aus, daf 
Andere nachjichtiger und giinftiger dadhten, namentlich 
feit infolge der jchon im dvitten Jahrhundert ftrenger 
beobadhteten Geheimniplehroronung die eigenthiimlide 
Buritdhaltung der Zwodlfapl. it der Angabe dev litur- 
gijcen Gebete nicht weiter auffallen modte. Wher immer- 
hin ftehen dtejer einen Mtiglihfeit noch set andere 
gegeniiber, δαβ ndmlid) der fatedetifd und dogmatifd 
wunvergleidlid) anjpredbendere und ebenfalls al8 Unter- 
εἰ! der Wpoftel fich einfithrende Sip. oder aud) die 
nad Cufebius inbaltlid) nicht zu beanftandende Sdvift 
Doctrinae apostolorum, falls vom Pluralis im Titel 
hier abgefeben werden darf, das von Wthanafius 
evwabhute Vorlejebud) war'). Und von dtefen drei Mog- 


Conftitutionen fupen. ἀν den Gebrauch unjerer Βιυ αν. im 
RKatechumenenunterrichte ergiebt fich dDemnach hier fein gentigender 
Beweis. 

1) Nad Hilqgenfeld, lc? p.89, hie bereits die unjerer 
Bwolfapl. gu Grunde liegende Darftelung der zwei Wege A- 
δαχὴ τῶν ἀποστόλων, jo da auch dieje von Athanafius 
gemeint fein finnte. GYndeS ftehen jener nicht πάθον. begritndeten 
Wufitellung swet Bedenfen eutgegen, namic): a) der BWerjfafjer 
Ὁε8 LebenSiweges gebraucht den WAusdrucd διδαχή (Bwolfapl. I, 3) 
aur Bezeichnung eines bejonderen, die erfte Uuslequng der Ltebes- 
gebote mittheilenden Wbjchnittes feiner Darftellung und wird des- 
Hhalb nicht felbjt jdhon diejen WXusdruck gum Titel des Gangen ge- 
wahlt haben; und Ὁ) Clemens von Ulery. beanftandet anjeinend 
Den Vitel ,WUpl.” im ποῖα anuj δία Medeweijfe der WApojtel im 
neuen Dejtament: er fennt diejen Titel aljo auch nicht bet dem 
pon ihm als ,Gchrift” angefithrten Unterrichtsbiichlein, das nicht 
minder al unjere Bwolfapl. von der Spracde der Wpoftel ab- 
weidt. — 


ΝΟΜῸΣ 


606 Krawupely, Ueber dite jog. Bwodlfapojtellehre. 


lichfeiten wird fid) der erfteren im Hinblice auf die 
porftehenden WAusfithrungen tiber Cntftehung, Geiftesart 
und anfanglice Wufnahme unjerer Zwilfapl. am wee 
nigften dev Vorzug griperer Wahricheinlidfeit zuerfennen 
lajjen 1). 


1) Bu fpat, um etngehender bevritcdfichtigt 4u werden, {ΠῚ mir 
die aweite Halfte der oben wiederholt erwahnten Schrift 2d. Har- 
nad’3 (Zerte und Unter]. Π, 2, S. 101 ff.) jowie der dvitte Theil 
pon Zh. Rahn’s Forjdhungen gur Gejch. des neuteft. Kanons 
und der altfircdl. Lit. (j. ©. 278 Ff.) gu Geficht gefommen. Dod 
fei wenigftens auf das durch) OScar Ὁ. Gebharodt’s Bemiihen 
qlitctlich beigebrachte Bragment einer Inteintjden Doctrina apo- 
stolorum (bei Wd. Harnad, a. a. Ὁ. GS. 275 ff.) Hhingewiejen, 


_ in weldem mit den Worten: Interpretatio autem horum ver- 


borum haec est: non moechaberis, non homicidium facies etc. 
in Devjelben Weijfe die defalogahnliche Siindenaufzahlung einge- 
leitet wird, wie oben begitglic) der dlteren awei Wege als wahr- 
{heinlich hingeftelt wurde. Ὁ. Ὁ. Gebhardt vermuthet (a. a. 0. 
©. 281) wegen diejer anjffalligen Uebereinjtimmung mit dem Geez 
danfengang der ap. Ko., dak fcon frith aus einer Handjdrift, auf 
welcher jowobh! die lateinijche Doctrina apostolorum αἵδ᾽ auch Die 
ap. Ko. fupen, ein (die Vollfommenheitsjpriiche und die Ueber- 
{chrift des ndchften Haupttheils enthaltendes) Blatt der Bwodlfapl. 
dur Bufall verloren gegangen fei. Ungeatwungener erflart fitch 
indes die fragliche Wuslaffung der Vollfommenheitsjpriiche durch 
die Annahme, dak der Verj. der lLateinijfden Apl. feiner Arbeit 
(ebenjo wie der Wutor der ap. Ko.) die dlteren swet Wege gu 
Grunde gelegt und aus diejer Vorlage unter gelegentlider Be- 
nugung fowohl deS VBarnabasbriefes als auch der Bwolfapl. eine 
eigene Doctrina apostolorum fergejtellt habe. Gm Uebrigen 
{cheinen die nunmehr vorliegenden Ausdeutungen der Bwolfapl. 
Die 4u Aufang gemachte Bemerfung in nicht geringem Grade 21 
beftdatigen, Dag an erfter Stelle die Frage nach den Oatellen der 
neuaufgefundenen Schrift von entjheidender Widhtigheit it. 


4 ᾿ af 


) <> 


ΤᾺ 
πα 


᾿ τ( tlre cocten. 
Vuarteetinf ὌΠ 
66.2. 674. (Ti Giger) 


2. 
Die Doctrina apostolorum. 


Bon Prof. Dr.” Funt. 


Der Wnfang dtejes Yahres bracdhte der Wifjen|dhajt 
der αι {{ und RKirchengeichidte mehrere werthvolle 
BVereidherungen. Das Parifer Bulletin critique N. 5 
verfiindigt die MXuffinding oe3 Liber de mysteriis des 
bl. Hilarius von Poitiers durd Gamurvini im der 
Bibliothef von Wre330, fowie die Muffindung de3 groperen 
Theiles deS Tractates, den der rimijche Archidiafon 
BPelagius 554 gegen die fiinfte allgemeine Gynovde 
und den Bapft Vigilius verfapte, nad) feiner baldigen 
Crhebung auf den papfiliden Stubl aber wieder φυυ ὦ: 
nabur, urd) Whbé Oudhesne in einem Coder der VBibliothef 
yon Orleans’. Das Bulletino di archeologia cristiana, 
serie [V, anno IL N. 1/2 enthalt ein aus 54 Herametern 
beftehendes Gedicht auf einen alS Martyrer im Gril ge- 
ftorbenen Papft, wahrjdheinlid) Martin 1... jedenfalls widht 
Giberius, wie de Mojft will, da diejer Papft nicht in der 
Verbannung fiir den Glauben ftarb. Endlich erjchien in 
Conftantinopel ein patrijtijdes Werk erjten Ranges, und 
Diejem jeien die folgenden Beilen gewidmet. Gs ift die 


382 oun, 


Doctrina apostolorum, aus der als ,, Schrift’ bereits 
pure) Clemens von Wlerandricn (Strom. I c. 20 ὃ 100 
p. 377 ed. Potter) ein Citat gebracdt wird, die Cujebius 
(H. H. IIT ς. 25) neben tem Baftor Herma, dem Barz 
nabasbrief, den Weten dDeS Paulus und der Offenbarung 
des Petrus unter den Wpofryphen auffiihrt ; die Athanafius 
(Ep. 39 ed. Patav. 1777 t. I, 768) in bdte Methe dev 
Schriften ftellt, dite er alS fiir οἷς Katechhumenen niiblice 
Gefebticer bezeichnet, namlic) ver Biichher Sirach, Cither, 
Sudith, Tobias und Paftor Herma; deren Umfang Nice- 
phorus in der Stichometrie auf 200 Beilen angtbt. Dte 
Schrift ftammt aus demjelben Codex, dem wir den voll- 
jtdndiget Lert der Clemensbriefe und eine bemertens- 
werthe Verbefferung des Veries de$ Barnabasbriefes und 
ber pfeudvignatianijden Briefe verdanfen, und fie wird 
uns von dem Wuffinder und Herausgeber, dem ὅτι. 
Metropoliter Bryennius von Mifomedien, zugleich mit 
ausfiibrliden Brofegomenen und einem fehr gelehrten 
Commentar geboten ἢ. Da thr Gnhalt ebenjo bedeutjam 
alg. ihr Umfang gering tft, und da die Editio princeps 
einem grofen Dbheil der Lejer der ὅλ. τ τ. nicht zugdng- 
lich fein und eine andere Wusgabe nicht jo bald erjdeinen 
wird, jo glauben wir dite Schrift nicht blob anzeigen, 
jondern zugleich in δε] εν Sprache mittheilen zu jollen. 
Wir unterziehen uns zunddit lebterer Wufgabe und 


1) Διδαχὴ τῶν δώδεκα ἀποστόλων ἐχ τοῦ ἱεροσολυ- 
μιτικοῦ χειρογράφου νῦν πρῶτον ἐχδιδομένη μετὰ προλεγομένων 
χαὶ σημειώσεων, EV οἷς χαὶ τῆς Συνόψεως τῆς Π. A., τῆς ὑπὸ 
Ἰωάννου τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου, σύγχρισις καὶ μέρος ἀνέχδοτον ἀπὸ 

- d ~ if ς A , Ui 
τοῦ αὐτοῦ χειρογράφου. “Υπὸ Φιλοϑεέεου Βρυεννίου 
μητροπολίτου Νικομηδείας. Ἔν Κωνσταντινουπόλει 1883. 


Die Doctrina apostolorum. 383 


Entipfen an die miglichft τονε Ueberjegung einige 
Bemerfungen an. | 
* * 
* 

Lehre de$ Herru [gegeben] 1) durch die zwHlf WApoftel 
Den Heiden. 

1. (ὃ gibt zwei Wege, einen [Weg] de3 Lebens und 
einen des Dodes, und e8 befteht eine grofe Verjchieden- 
Heit zmifcen beiden Wegen. Der Weg des Lebens nun 
ift diefer. Crftend jollft du Gott lieben, deinen ΘΟ ρον; 
siweitens deinen Machjten wie dich) felbft; und alles, was 
immer du willft, dab eS dir nicht gejdehe, das thue aud) 
du einent anderen nidjt. Die Lehre diejer Worte aber 
ift folgende: Gegnet diejentgen, twelde euch flucen, und 
betet fiir eure Feinde, und faftet fiir diefenigen, welche 
cud) verfolgen; denn welden Lohn werdet thr haben, 
wenn ihr [nur] dte liebet, die euch lieben? Thun δα: 
jelbe nicht auch die Heiden? Bhr aber jollt odie lieben, 
die οἰ Hajjen, und iby jollt feinen Feind haben. (δ: 
halte dich aller [εἰ εν. und weltlicen Begierden. 
Wenn div jemand einen Schlag gibt auf die rechte Wange, 
jo veiche ihm auch die andere Dar, und du wirit voll- 
fommen jet; wenn dtc) einer beanfprucht auf eine Meile, 
gehe zivet mit idm; wenn einer deinen Mantel nimmt 
gib ihm aud) den Rod, wenn einer dir das Deinige 
ninumt, fordere eS nicht σιν; denn du fannf{t eS midbt. 
Gib jedem, der dich bittet, und fordere ἐδ nicht φᾷ; 
Denn der Vater will, dak allen von den eigenen Gaben 
gegeben werde. Gelig, wer gemap dem Gebote gibt; 
Denn ev erletdet feine Strafe. Webhe dem, der nimmt; 


1) Das in Klammern Stehende ift Zuthat de8 Ueberjebers. 


384 Sunt, 


Denit wenn einer nimmt, der bedtirftig ift, fo wird er Feine 
Strafe leiden. Wer aber nimmt, ohne bedtirftig zu fein, 
wird Mechenjdaft ablegen, wmarum er genommen und 
WOZU, UND in Die Enge gefommen wird er gepriift werden 
liber Das, was er gethan, und er wird von da nidt 
herausfommen, bis er den Lebten Heller bezabhlt hat. 
Wher auc) daritber ift gejagt worden: Dein Wlmofen 
{éhwike in deinen Handen, bid du weift, mem ou geben 
ΤΟ], 

2. Das ziweite Gebot der Lehre aber [ijt]: Du jollft 
nicht tddten, nicht die Che brechen, nicht Rnaben jdanbden, 
nicht Unkeujdheit tretben, nicht fteblen, nicht Zauberet 
treiben, nicht Gift πιο, das Kind nicht morden durd 
Mhorius, nod) e8 tHdten, wenn ἐδ geboren ift. Du follft 
nist begehren das Gut deines Machften, nicht fcwosren, 
fein Τα δ Beugnigk geben, nicht jdmahen, nicht rach- 
flichtig fein. Du follft nicht unbeftdndig jein noch dopypel- 
stingig; Denn eine Sdlinge de Codes ift ote Doppel- 
siingigtcit. Deine Mede fet nicht Litqnerijch, nicht eitel, 
foudern gejdttigt durd) die Ghat. Du follft nicht hab- 
jiichtig fein noch raduberifd, nicht Heudchlerifdh, nicht bb3- 
artig, nidt itbermtithig. Ou jollft feinen jcblimmen Rath 
gegen deinen Nachjten annehmen. Du jollft niemand 
haffen, jondern dte einen jollft du zuredjtiveijen, fiir die 
anderen beten, wieder andere lieben mehr als dein Leben. - 

3. Mein Kind, fliehe alles Boje und alle, was 
ibm ἀρεῖ ift. Get nidt zornig; denn der Born fithrt 
zum Mord; noch fet ecifernd oder ftrett}itehtig oder auf- 
Draujend; denn aus all dem entitehen Mordthaten. Wein 
Kind, jet nidt begebhrlid); denn die Begterde fithrt zur 
Ungudht; fiihre Leine fdmugige Meden und fet nicht fred 


Die Doctrina apostolorum. 885 


mit den Wugen; denn aus all dem entftehen Chebriide. 
Mein Kind, adte nicht auf die Vigel [zur Wabhrfagerei] ; 
Dent das fiihrt zum Gdgendienfte; fet fein Befdywirer 
oder Mathematifer nod) treibe Reiniqung [von Krankheit 
Dder Siinde odurd) Opfer], noc) wolle dergleicen jeben; 
denn aus all dem entfteht Gsgendienft. Mein Kind, fei 
nicht Litgnerifd; denn die Vitge [θυ zum Diebftabl; 
nod geldgterig oder rubmilidtig; denn aus all dem 
entftehen Diebftahle. Mein Kind, fet nicht miirrvijdh; denn 
das flihrt zur Lafterung; noc frech nod) δεῖς Schlimmes; 
Denn aus all dem entftehen Vafterungen. Get aber janft- 
miithig; denn die Sanfimiithiqen werden als Crbtheil 
befigen das Vand. Sei langmiithig und barmberzig und 
unfduldig und rubig und gut und zittere immerdar vor 
det Worten, die du gehirt Haft. Du follft dich nicht 
erheben noch 7011 du deiner Seele Verwegenheit geftatten. 
Deine Seele joll fic) nicht an die Hohen Haugen, jondern 
du jollft mit den Geredten und Niedrigen verfehren. Dte 
Schidjale, die div widerfabren, follft du als gut auf: 
nehmen, wifjend, dap nidts ohne Gott gejdiebt. 

4, Mein Kind, du wirft defjen bet Nacht und Lag 
eingedent jein, der zu div δα Wort Gottes jpridyt, und 
du wirft ibn οὔτοι wie den Hervn; denn von wo die 
Herrjdaft genannt wird, da ift der Herv. Du wirft 
taglich aufjuden das Angelidt dev Heiligen, damit ou 
did) ihrer Meden erfreueft. Du follft feine Spaltung 
wiinjden, die Streitenden vielmehr zum Frieden bringen. 
Du jollft gerecht ridchten, nicht auf die Berfon jehen, wenn 
bu wegen BVerfehlungen zuredhtweifeft. Du folljt nicht 
siweifelu, ob eS fein wird oder nidt. Du jollft deine 
Hande nicht zum Nehmen ausitrecter, zum Geben aber 


‘oad 


Cheol. Quartalferift. 1884. Heft ΠΙ. 25 


386 Sunt, 


aufammenziehen; wenn du haft, wirft Du geben mit 
deinen Handen [zur] Lifung detner Sinden. Du follft 
nicht zigern zu geben noch murren, wenn du gibjt; denn 
bu wirft erfennen, wer der gute Bergelter des Lohnes 
ift. Du wirft dic) von dem Diirftigen nicht abwennden, 
jondern alles deinem Bruder mitthetlen und nichts. etgen 
nennen; denn wenn thr Gemeinjdaft θα: im Unver- 
gaugliden, um τοῖς vtel mehr in den vergdngliden Dingen? 
Du follft deine Hand nicht hinwegnehmen von deinem Sohn 
oder von deiner Godhter, fondern [fic] von Jugend auf 
lehren die Furcht Gottes. Du jollft deinem Knecht oder 
Deiner Mtagd, dte auf denjelben Gort hoffen, nicht befehlen 
in deiner Bitterfeit, namit fie nicht etwa von der Furdt gegen 
Gott laffen, dev tiber beiden tft; denn er fommt nidt, 
um nach der Perjon zu berufen, jondern diejenigen, welche 
dev Geift bereitet hat. Dhr Knechte aber [εἰν unterintirfig 
euren Herren alS dem Bild Gottes in Scheu und Furdt. 
Du jollft haffen alle Heuchelet und alles, was dem Herrn 
nicht gefallt. Ou jollft nicht verlaffen die Gebote des 
Herrn, fondern bewahren, was du empfangen Haft, ohne 
Hinguzujegen oder Hinwegzunehmen. Qu der Verfammlung 
follft du befennen deine Stinden und nicht zum Gebet hing 
zutreten mit fdledtem Gewiffen. Das ift der Weg des 
Sebens. 

5. Der Weg δε Dodes aber ift diejer: vor allem 
ift ev jdledht und voll de8 Flude3; Mord, Chebrud, 
Begierde, Huveret, Diebftahl, Gigendienft, Zauberet, 
Giftmijheret, Raub, falfches Beuguib, Heuchelet +), Bwei- 
deutigteit, Crug, Stolz, Bosheit, Anmabung, Habjudt, 

1) Dev gvriechifche Text Hat bis bhieher tiberall den Plural: 
φόγοι, μοιχεῖαι U. f. W. 


Die Doctrina apostolorum. 387 


{hmugige Rede, Ciferjucht, Verwegenheit, UWebermuth, 
Sdhmeidelet; die Guten verfolgen +), die Wahrheit haffen, 
Die Liige lieben, den Lohn dev Geredhtigheit nicht erfennen, 
nidt dem Guten anhdugen noc) dem gerecdhten Gericdte, 
nist wachen zum Guten, fondern zum Sdlecten, fern 
jein von Sanftmuth und Geduld, das Gitle lieben, nad) 
Vergeltung jagen, mit dem WArmen fein Miitletd haben, 
um den Niedergebeugten fic) nidt bemithen, den Schipfer 
nicht erfennen, die Kinder tddten, das Gebilde Goite3 
pernidten, von dem Dtirftigen fic) abmwenden, den Bez 
drangten unterdriiden, die Retchen vertheidigen, gegen 
die Wrmen ungerechtes Geridht tiben, flindigen in allem: 
befreit euch, Rinder, von alle dem. 

6. GSiehe zu, dap dich feiner weafithrt von diejem 
Weg dev Lehre, da er augerhalb Gott dich lehrt. Denn 
wenn du tragen faunft das ganze Soc des Herrn, wirft 
du vollfommen fein; wenn du eS nicht fannft, fo thue 
das, was dU vermagit. Besiiglich der Speife aber trage, 
was ou fannft; habe Wht gar jehr vor dent Gdgenopfer ; 
denn ἐδ ift Verehrung todter Gdtter. 

7. Sn Betreff der Daufe aber, taufet alfo: wenn 
ἰρτ all das Vorhergehende gejagt habt *), taufet auf den 
Namen de Vaters und de$ Sohnes und des Hl. Geiftes 
in flieBendDem 5) Waffer. Wenn du fein fliependes Waffer 
haft, taufe in andevem Wafjer; wenn du e3 αἰ in faltem 
fannjt, im warmem. Wenn du beides nicht Haft, jo gtepe 


1) Statt de$ Gnfinitives hat dev qriechijche Text im Folgenden 
fiberall da8 Subjtantiv oder Particip: διῶχται ἀγαθῶν, μισοῦντες 
ἀλήϑειαν U. |. Ww, 

2) Wértlich: tenn ihr all das vorher gefagt habt. 

3) Wortlich: lebendein. 

25 * 


388 ount, 


auf das Haupt dreimal Waffer im Namen des Vaters 
und de3 Sobhnes und Hl. Geijtes. Bor der Gauje aber 
fafte, wer tauft und getauft wird und wenn nocd einige 
andere e3 fdnnen. Dem Taufling wirjt du befeblen, 
einen oder Zivet Dage zu faften. 

8. Cure Faften aber jollen nicht mit den Heucdlern 
fein; denn fie fafter am Montag und Donnerstag. Ghr 
follt vtelmehr am Mittwod und Freitag faften. Betet 
auc) nict wie die Heudler, fjondern wie der Herr in 
jeinem Gvangelium e3 geboten hat, jo betet: Unjer Vater, 
Dev Du bift in dem Himmel, gebhetligt werde dein Jame, 
dein Meid) fomme, dein Wille gejcehe wie im Himmel 
jo auf Grden; unfer taglices Brod gih uns heute, uno 
vergib un3 unjere Schuld, wie auch wir vergeben unjeren 
Sdhuldigern, und fiihre uns nicht in Verjuchung, jondern 
ertije uns von dem Uebel, weil dein tit die Madt und 
οἷς Chre in Cwigkeit. Dreimal de3 Tages betet fo. 

9, Was aber die Cucharijtie anbelangt, fo jaget 
aljo Dank. Zuerft in Betreff de Srankes: Wir danfen 
Dir, unjer Vater, fitr den hetligen Weinftock Davids 
DeineS Sohne +), den du uns fund gethan Haft ourd 
yejus deinen Sohn ἢ); div jet Chre in Cwigfeit. Sn 
Betreff des gebrochenen Brotes 2): Wir danfen div, unjer 
Vater, flir daS Leben und die Kenntnigz, die du un Haft 
erfennen Lafjen durd) Sejus deinen Sohn; div fet Chre 
in Cwigkeit. We dtejes Brot zerftreut war auf den 
Bergen *) und zujammengefithrt eins wurde, fo mige 


1) Der griechifdye Text hat hier und tm Folgenden fajt immer 
παῖς. 

2) Cigentlid): Brechen3, χλάσματος. 

9) Naimlich in den Kirnern δο8 Getretdes. 


Die Doctrina apostolorum. 389 


Deine Kirche zujammengefiihrt werden von den Grengzen 
dev Erde in dein eid), weil dein ift die Chre und die 
Macht durd Fejus Chriftus in Ciwigkeit. Reiner aber 
efje oder ivinfe von eurer Cuchariftie, aufer die getauft 
find auf den Namen de$ Hervn; denn dariiber hat der 
Herr gejagt: Gebet das Heilige nidt den Hunden. 

10. Geid thr aber gejdttigt, jo danfet aljo: Wir 
Danten div, Hetliger Vater, flv deinen Heiligen Namen, 
Den Du gepflangt θα in unjere Herzen, und fiir die 
Kennini®f und den Glauben und die Unfterblicfeit, dte 
Du uns Haft erfennen Laffen ourcy Yejus deinen Sohn; 
div fet Ghre in Cwigleit. Du, allmadchtiger Herr, Haft 
alle3 ervjdaffen um deines Namens willen; du gabft 
Speije und Tranf den Menjdhen zum Genug, damit jie 
οἷν Dank jagen; uns aber jcenfteft du geijtlicde Spetie 
und Sranf und ewiges Leben durd) deinen Sohn. Bor 
allem danfen wir div, weil du madtig δἰ; div fet Chre 
in Gwigleit. Set eingedenf, Herr, deiner Kirche, fie zu 
befreien von allem Boifen und [16 zu vollenden in deiner 
Siebe, und verjammle fie von den vier Winden, dte geez 
heiliqte, in dein Reid, das du ihr bereitet haft, weil 
Dein ift dic Macht und die Chre in Cwigfeit. C3 fomme 
die Gnade und dieje Welt gehe dahin. Hojanna dem 
Sohne Davids. Wenn einer heilig ift, jo trete er herzw; 
wenn er ὁ nicht tft, thue er Bupe. WMtaran Wtha *). 
Amen. Den Propheten aber geftattet Dank zu fagen, 
fo viel fie wollen. 

11. Wenn nun einer fommt und euch all das Vor- 
Hergejagte Lehrt, jo nimmt ibn auf. Wenn aber der 


1) D. i. der Herv fommt. Bgl. I Rov. 16, 22. 


390 Funk, 


Lehrende jelbft fic) vervirrend eine andeve Lehre Lehrt, 70 
dah ev [jene] aufldst, jo hivet ihn nicht; wenn er aber 
die Gerechtigfeit und Kenntnigb de3 Hervn [in euch] ver- 
mehrt, jo nimmt ihn auf wie den Herrn. Jn Betveff 
det Apoftel aber und Propheten thut nach der Lehre des 
Cvangeliums aljo. Beder Wpoftel, dev gu eud) fommt, 
werde aufgenommen wie der Herr; ev bleibe aber nidt 
Langer al8 1) einen Dag, und wenn ἐδ nbthig ijt, auc) 
Dent andern; wenn εὐ aber dret [Lage] bleibt, ijt er etn 
falfdher Prophet. Geht der Wpoftel weiter, fo nehme ev 
nidts mit auper Brot bis zum nachften Aufenthaltsort ; 
wenn ev aber Geld verlangt, ift er etn Τα ον Prophet. 
Und jeder Brophet, der im Geifte jpricdt, verjuchet ihn 
nicht nod) beurtheilet ihn; denn jede Sitnde wird vergeben 
werden, Diefe Sitnde aber wird nicht vergeben werden. 
Nicht jeder aber, der im Geifte fpricht, ijt ein Brophet, 
foudern [nur], wenn ev den Wandel de3 Herr Hat. Wn 
jetnem Wandel alfo wird der faljde und dev wabhre Prophet 
evfannt werden. Und jeder Prophet, dev im Geifte [redend] 
einen ἰῷ beftellt, er wird nicht von ihm efjen, ev fet 
Denn etn falfdher Prophet. Seder Prophet aber, der die 
Wahrheit fpridht, wenn er nicht thut, was er Lebhrt, ift 
ein falfdher Brophet. Seder Prophet, bewabhrt und wabhr- 
Haftig, dev in der Verjammlung geheimnipvolle, weltlice 
Dinge vervichtet 2), dabet aber nicht lehrt, man jolle thun, 
was ev felbft thut, foll nicht von euch gerichtet werden ; 


1) Sm Codex, begiv. in dev Wusgabe fehlt εἰ μή vor ἡμέραν, 
das nach der Parallelftelle c, 12 nothwendig gu ergdngen ijt. 

2) So deutet Duchesne die Stelle (Bull. crit. 1884 yp. 93). 
Dev Text lautet: ποιῶν εἰς μυστήριον χοσμιχὸν ἐχχλησίας, ift 
aber ohne Siweifel corrupt. 


Die Doctrina apostolorum. 391 


deun ev Hat fein Gericht bet Gott; denn folded thaten auch 
die alten Bropheten. Wenn einer im Geifte [vedend| fagt: 
Gib miv Geld oder etwas anderes, hiret ihn nicht ; wernt 
ev aber fagt, man jolle fiir andere geben, die bediirftiq 
find, jo vichte ibn fetner. 

12. ebder, der fommt im Namen de3 Herrn, werde 
aufgenommen. Hernach aber werdet iby ihn priifen und 
erfennen; denn thr jollet Rechts und Links που] οἰδεῖ 1). 
Sit Der Kommende ein Voriibervetijender, jo unterfttiiget 
ibu, jo viel ihr fonnet; ev wird aber bet cud) nicht Langer 
alS zwei oder drei Dage bleiben, wenn ἐδ nothig iff. 
Will ev fic aber bet euch niederlatjen und tft ev ein 
Handwerker, jo arbeite ev und effe; verfteht er fein Hand- 
werk, jo forgt fiir ihn nad) eurver Cinjidt, wie er, ohne 
miipig zu fein, unter euch als Ghrift leben 701. Wenn 
ev aber nicht jo thun will, dann treibt er mit Chriftus 
Handel. Habt Wet vor dergleiden Leuten. 

13. Seder wabhrbhaftige Brophet, der [Ὁ bet euch 
niederlajjen will, tft feines Unterhaltes werth. Cbenjo ijt 
ein wabrbhaftiger Sehrer, wie dev WArbeiter, auch jelbft werth 
feine3 Unterhaltes. Wlle Critlinge nun der Crtragniffe 
Dev RKelter und Tenne, der Minder und Schafe wirit ou 
nehmen und den Bropheten geben; denn fie find eure 
Hohenpricfter. Habt ihr aber feinen Bropheten, dann 
gebet [fie] den Wrmen. Wenn du Speife bhereiteft, 70 
nimm die Erftlinge und gib fie dem Gebot gemap. Chenjo 
wenn du einen Krug Wein oder Oel Hffneft, nimm der 
Wnbrud) und gib ibn dem PBropheten. Und von Geld 


1) Wortlich: ihv werdet vechte und Linke Cinjicht haben. 


392 gun, 


und Keidung und allem Befigthum nimm die Crftlinge, 
wie e8 dir gut diinft, und gib gemapB dem Gebote. 

14. Am Gag de3 Herrn *) aber follt ihr euch) ver- 
jammeln und da3 Brot brechen und Dank fagen, nachdem 
iby [zuvor] eure Sitnden befaunt habt, auf dab euer 
Oypfer rein jet. Yeder aber, der Streit hat mit feinem 
Freunde, dev fomime nicht mit eud) zufammen, bid fie {id 
verjohut haben, damit euer Opfer nidt verunretnigt wird ; 
Denn das ift das [Wort], was det Herr gejproden hat: 
Wn jedem Orte und zu jeder Beit [foll man] mir ein 
reine3 Opfer darbringen; denn ein groper Konig bin ἰῷ, 
jpricht der Herr, und mein Jame tft wunderbar unter 
Den Volfern. 

15. Beftellet *) eud) ferner Cpijfopen und Diafonen, 
wiirdig Des Herru, Manner, die janftmiithig find und fern 
pon Geldgier und wabhrhaftig und erprobt; denn euch 
leiften aud) fie den Dienft der Bropheten und Lehrer. 
Verachtet fie aljo nicht; denn fie find die Geebrten unter 
οὐ mit den Bropheten und Lehrern 8). 

Weijet einander zurecht nicht in Born, jondern im 
Srieden, wie thr ἐδ in dem Cvangelium habt; und wenn 
fic) einer gegen den νά τε vergeht, 70 fpreche Feiner 
mit ibm noc) hore ev [thn] bet euch, bis er fitch gebefjert 
hat. Gure Gebete aber und Wmofen und alle Handlungen 
verridtet jo, wie ihr e8 in dem Cvangelium eures Herrn 
findet. 

16. Wachet fiir euer Leben. Cure Lampen jollen 
nicht erldjden, und eure Senden jollen nicht entgiirtet 


1) Wortlic&h: Sonntag de3 Herrn. 
2) Δειροτονήσατε. 
3) Ot τετιμημένοι ὑμῶν μετὰ τῶν προφητῶν x. ὃ. 


Die Doctrina apostolorum. 393 


werden, jondern fetid bereit; denn ihr fennt nidt die Stunde, 
in welder unjer Herr fommt. Hdufig aber follt ihr eud) 
verjammeln, fuchend, was euren Seelen noth thut; denn 
nichts wird οι nitgen die ganze Beit cures Glaubens, 
wenn iby nicht in der Lebten Beit vollfommen werdet. 
Denn in den lesten Tagen werden fic) mehren die falfden 
Bropheten und die Verderber, und die Schafe werden {td 
in Wilfe verFehren und die Liebe wird fic) in Hap ver- 
fehren; denn wenn die Ungerechtigtett zuntmmt, werden 
fie einander Hafjen uud verfolgen und tiberliefern, und 
Dann wird erjcheinen der Weltverfithrer gleidhjam als dev 
Sohn GotieS und ev wird Zeicen und Wunder thun, 
und Die Erde wird in jetne Hande tibergeben werden, und 
ev wird Frevel vertiben, wie fte feit Cwigkeit niemals 
gejdheben find. Dann wird das Gefdlecht 1) der Menjdhen 
in das Feuer der Pritfung fommen und viele werden fich 
drgern und 3u Grunde gehen; die aber ausharren in 
ihrem Glauben, werden gerettet werden 7). Und dann 
werden erjdheinen die Beichen dev Wahrheit: erftens das 
Beiden der Oeffuung am Himmel, dann das Beidhen der 
Stimme der Poljaune, und dvittens dite WAuferftehung dev 
Looten, jedoch nicht aller, jondern wie gejagt ift: (δ wird 
fommen der Hery und alle Heiligen mit ihm. Dann wird 
Die Welt den Hervn fommen fehen auf den Wolfen des 
Himmels. 


᾿ξ μὰ 


1) Κιτίσις. 

2) Dev gviechijche Text fiigt bet: ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ τοῦ χαταϑέματος. 
Aber was heift δα Brhennius vermuthet, χατάϑεμα (—= χατ- 
ανάϑεμα) bedeute Chriftus, jofern die Verivorfenen ihr veriwiinfeben 
iwerden; oder e8 fet zu lefen: ἐπ᾿ αὐτοῦ tod xatw ϑέματος, Ὁ. ἰ. 
ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς. 


394 Sunt, 


So der Wortlaut der Ὁ. A. Wie man fieht, zerfallt 
δίς Schrift in zwet nicht ganz gleide Theile. Der erfte 
Theil c. 1—6 ift eine etnfache Unterweijung in der chrijft- 
licen Sittenlehre, und er fallt in der Hauptiache mit den 
Capiteln 18—20 de3 Barnabasbriefes zujammen. Dod) 
ift Der Snhalt der beiden Sdyriften nicht ganz derjelbe, 
und was noch widhtiger tft, die Rethenfolge der Sentenzen 
ift vielfach eine verjdiedenc. Was jenen Buntt anbelangt, 
jo findet man in jeder dev beiden Schriften einzelne Sage, 
die im Der anderen nicht ftehen. Bn oder D. A. tft indeffen 
das Cigenthiimlice betradtlider als in B. Sie hat καιροί 
qropere Stticle, ote Hier fehleu, ndmlich die Worte: Wiles 
was du wicht willft w. f. Ὁ. bis an das Ende de3 erften 
Capitels, bezw. den griperen Cheil diejes Capitels, jowie 
den Anfang und grdReren Theil de$ dvitten Capitels, den 
UAbichnitt, im dem die Quellen der Hauptfiinden des 
Mordes, EChebrudhes, Gwgendienftes, Diebftahl3 und der 
Lafterung aufgezeigt werden. Bestiglich der Meihenfolge 
ber Sentenzen ift vor allem an Folgendes gu evinnern. 
Xn der D. A. ftehen die beiden Gebote der Gottes- und 
Der Nachftenliebe zujammen voran. Gu B find fie von 
einander getrennt (19, 2. 5) und die tibrigen Gebote find 
in der Hauptfade jo an fie angeretht, dak jene gewifjer- 
mapen αἵ Cintheilungsprincip erjceinen. Fretlic) ift die 
Cinthetlung nicht ftreng durchgefiihrt. Wir finden im 
erften Theil eingzelnes, twas mehr dem siweiten angebhdrt, 
wie Die Vorjchrift, einen jehlechten Math gegen den Machften 
angunebmen (VU. 3) und dem Bruder die Beleidigung 
nicht nachzutragen (4), und umgefehrt, wie οἷο “δου τί, 
Die Schicjale als aus Gottes Hand fommend al3 etwas 
Gutes hingunehmen (6). Wber im ganzen erjdheint der 


Die Doctrina apostolorum.. 395 


Stoff doc in der fragliden Weije angeordnet, und ἐδ 
diirfte nidt ohne Bedeutung fein, wenn unmittelbar vor 
dem Gebot der Machjtenliebe die Worte ftehen: du follft 
Den Iamen des Herrn nidpt ettel nennen, der von der 
Gottesliebe handelnde «θείς aljo mit diejem Gebote 
{ehlieBt. Die fraglichen Puntte fallen ferner aud) deb- 
wegen gegen unfjere Wnnahme weniger ins Gewidt, weil 
die Gedanfenfolge in B. tiberhaupt und auch in den 
einzelnen Dbhetlen: fitr fic) Lockerer und weniger genroduet 
ift alg in D. A. Sn diefer find 3. B. die auf die Wobl- 
thdtigfeit bestigliden Gentenzen c. 4 p. 19—21 alle δι 
einem gefdloffencn Ganzen zujammengeftellt. Sn B finden 
wir fte augseinandergeriffen an dret Orten (19, 8. 9. 11). 
Dort finden wir ferner c. 4 p. 22 die zujammengehirige 
Gebote: alles 211 hajfen, was dem Herrn nicht gefallt, 
und die Gebote de3 Herrm wicht 3u verlaifen, jonoern 
das Empfangene ohne Bujak und ohne Sdmalerung 3u 
bewabren, twiederum in unmittelbarer Wufeinanderfolge. 
Hier ftehen fie wiederum und 3ivar febr weit (19, 2. 11) 
augseinander, und die Folge der Drennung ift, dab ote 
siveite Sentens (φυλάξεις, a παρέλαβες) in ihrer Sfolirt- 
δεῖ! faum verftandlid) ift. Wehnlich verhalt ἐδ fitch mit 
anderen Stellen. Nur in einem griperen Sttick {{ die 
Mufeinanderfolge der Sentenzen im wefentlicen die gleide, 
in der Befdreibung de3 Weges der Stinde, naberhin in 
Der aweiten und Ldngeren Halfte diefes Wbjchnittes von 
διῶκται eyadmy an. 

Sit dev erfte Theil der Ὁ. A. ebenfowobhl vermige 
eines sithaltes αἵ weil ev im twefentliden fdou bisher 
befannt war, von gervingerer Bedeutung, fo ift dagegen 
der gweite mit c. 7 beginnende Wbjcnitt von gripter 


396 Funk, 


Wihtigfeit. Cr gibt uns vor allem tiber die nahere Be- 
ftimmuig de8 erften Thetles Wufiehlugk, indem aus den 
Nufangsworten hervorgebht, dah derjelbe fiir den UWnter- 
richt devjenigen beftimmt tar, welde in die chriftlide Kirche 
aufgenomimen zu werden iwitnjdten, der Katedhumenen, ein 
Wort, das itbrigens in der Schrift felbjt noch nicht vov- 
fomimt. Wn fich aber (abt fic) der MWhfchnitt qewiffermaken 
als cin firclices Nituale oder als eine RKirdenordnung 
bezeicynen. Cr handelt der Natur der Sache ent}predend 
und antitipfend an den erften Theil zundcdhft von der Daufe. 
Das Faften vor der Gaufe gibt Veranlafjung, ein furzes . 
Wort iiber dieje Uebung im allgemeinen beizufligen, und 
δα Hter αἵ Gegenjak ote Pravis der , Heuchler” oder 
Bhavifder δου αὶ wird, folgt mit δ ΟΠ auf den 
gleichen Gegenjak eine Belehrung tiber das Gebet. Die 
Capitel 9—10 Handelu von der Cudariftic, und sipar mit 
Voranftellung de3 Weines vor dem Brote, wie abnlich 
Cuf. 12, 14—18 und 1 Ror. 10, 16—21. Wir begegnen 
Hier den alteften fcriftlic&h fixirten Liturgifden Gebeten. 
Wir erfahren aber auch zugleic), dak nicht alle an dtefe 
Gebete gebunden waren, dak e8 vielmehr Berjonen gab, 
welche in freter Weife Dank fagen ourften, jo wie der 
Geift e3 ihnen eingab, δίς Propheten. Die auf diejen 
Puntt bestiglidhe Bemerfung gibt Anlab, von dev Wufnahme 
und Behandlung der Propheten und Wpoftel, begw. Lehrer 
joie der einfacen Chriften 3u reden, die gleid) jenen von 
ausindrts her in eine Gemeinde fommen, fet e3 zu einem 
voritbergebenden, fet e8 zu einem bletbenden Wufenthalt 
(c. 11—13), und nad) diejer Digre|fton folgt der Schlup 
dev MAuseinanderfepung iiber die Cuchariftie (ὁ. 14). Bez 
jonders bemerfensiwerth ift hier die Crmahnung eines dem 


Die Doctrina apostolorum. 397 


hl. Mable vorangehenden Sitndenbefenntnijjes. Daran 
vetht fic) die Bemerfung tiber die Geftellung von Ge- 
meindevorftdnden jowte ein Wort itber die britderlide Bu- 
το θείᾳ. Den ΘΒ macht endlich die Crmabhnung 
zur Wacdhjamecit mit Hinweis auf die Lebten Dinge. 
Gehen wir von der Wnalyje der Schrift zu der Be- 
ftimmung ihrer Bett ither, jo tft zunddjt 3u bemerfen, 
Dap fie namentlic allerdings erft durch Cufebius erwabhut 
wird, und auch vow ihm nicht ganz it dem vidtiqen Vitel, 
indem ev von τῶν ἀποστόλων αἱ λεγόμεναι διδαχαὶ 
(AH. EH. ΠῚ c. 25) redet. Qnodejjen fann ἐδ ebenjowenig 
einent Siweifel unterliegen , dab Cujebius unjere Schrift 
mit jenen Worten meinte, da fie bald nadbher von 
Mthanafius αἵ “ιδαχή aufgefiihrt wird, als dafh die 
Schrift damals fdon Lange Beit vorhanden war. Die 
Bemerfung des Clemens von Wlerandrien Strom. I c. 20: 
Οὗτος (sc. ὁ ἐπ᾽ ἀλλοτρίοις πόνοις καυχώμενος) κλέτττης 
ὑπὸ τῆς γραφῆς εἴρηται" φησὶ γοῦν: Υἱέ, μὴ γίνου 
ψεύστης, odnysl γὰρ τὸ ψεῦσμα πρὸς τὴν κλοπῆήν, 
jegte die D. A. voraus, da die Worte δον, Schrift” bier 
(c. 4) fich finden, ausgenommen allein das we, ftatt deffen 
wir τέκνον μου lejen, und die weitere Schrift, die die 
Worte ebenfalls enthalt, die 7. g. apojftolijde Rirden- 
oronung (Hilgenfeld, Evang. sec. Hebr. ete. p. 98), 
ficherlich jiinger iff. Die Schrift war aljo um das Bahr 
200 vorhanden, und fie entitand geraume Beit vor diefem 
Termin, da fie von Clemens als , Schrift” citirt wird. 
Mud iby θα wetst auf einen jehr frithen Urjprung 
bin. Gie hat durchiweg ein jo alterthitmlides Geprage 
und fie besieht fic) auf jo primitive firdlide Verhaltnifje, 
DagB fie der Mitte deS zweiten Gabrhunderts eher voran- 


398 gun, 


als nachzujegen ift. Wie weit fie aber tiber diejen Termin 
hinaufzurticten ift, hat ihre Vergleidhung mit dem Paftor 
Herma und dem Barnabashrief 3n zeigen, mit denen fie 
fic) fo nabe beriihrt, dap eine unmittelbare MWhhangigfeit 
im Diejer oder jener Micdtung anzunehmen {{{. 

Bryennius lagt die D. A. von beiden Schriften ab- 
Hangen und er jegt thre Cutftehung auf 120—160 an. 
Durchfclagende Gritnde fiir die Wuffaffung Liegen indefjen 
nicht vor. Am allerivenigiten ijt die PBrioritat des Paftor 
gegentiber dev Ὁ. A. bewiejen. Derjelbe berithrt fic) mit 
ibr Hauptjacdhlic) Mand. IL mit feiner Vehre vom WAlmojen- 
geben und Mand. XI mit feiner Wuseinanderfepung {θεῖ 
den faljdhen Bropheten. Dort trijft er mit ihr zum Gheil 
auch τούν gujammen, wie folgende Gegeniiberftellung 
setat: 


D; A..c, 1 Ῥ. 7 86. 

Πᾶσι γὰρ ϑέλει δίδοσϑαι ὁ 
πατὴρ ἐχ τῶν ἰδίων χαρισμά- 
των. Ιαχάριος ὃ διδοὺς κατὰ 
τὴν ἐντολήν᾽ ἀϑῶος γάρ ἔστιν. 

oN ai ~ , a SD pees 
Οὐαὶ τῷ λαμβανοντι" εἰ μὲν 
γὰρ χρείαν ἔχων λαμβάνει τις, 
3 ~ a” ς \ f 
ἀϑῶος EOTAL’ ὃ δὲ μὴ χρείαν 
ἔχων δώσει δίχην, ἱνατί ἔλαβε 
χαὶ εἰς τί. 


PH. M: IL-4. 5. 
Πᾶσιν γὰρ ὃ Fedo δίδοσϑαι 
ϑέλει ἐχ τῶν ἰδίων δωρημάτων. 
Οἱ οὖν λαμβάνοντες ἀποδώσου- 
σιν λόγον τῷ ϑεῷ, διατί ἔλαβον 
καὶ εἰς τί" οἱ μὲν γὰρ λαμβά- 
γοντες ϑλιβόμενοι ob δικασϑή- 
ς τ Cc 
σονται, ol δὲ ἐν ὑποχρίσει λαμ- 
, t ' ς 
βᾶάνοντες τίσουσιν δίχην. O 
οὖν διδοὺς ἀϑῶός ἐστιν. 


Wher was folgt daraus fiir das Verhaltnigz beider 


Schriften? Offenbar fann der Paftor ebenjo gut von der 
D. A. abbangig fein al8 diefe von ihm, und wenn wir 
an die Verwendung der D. A. zum Katedumenenunterridt - 
denfen, wenn wir ferner erwagen, dah dev Paftor nach der 
wabhrjdheinlideren Wnnabhme erft um die Mitte de ziveiten 


Die Doctrina apostolorum. 399 


Jahrhunderts entftanden {{{, jo jpricdt die qrogfere Wabhr- 
fcheinlichfeit fitr die Priovitdt der Ὁ. A. ἢ). 

Sudeffen diirfte die Ὁ. A. nicht bloB dem Paftor 
Herma, foudern auch dem Barnabasbrief vorangehen, und 
zwar aus folgendem Grunde. C3 wurde bereits oben 
darauf hingewtejen, dap inhaltlic) zujammengehirige Gabe 
in B mebrfad) ausgeinandergerijjen find. (ὅδ erbhebt fid 
Daher die Frage, ob ἐδ wabhricheinlider ift, dab die be- 
treffenden Sentenzen urjpriinglid) mit cinander verbunden 
waren, jo wie fie auc) inbaltlic) zujammengehsren, und 
erjt jpdter auseinandergerifjen wurden, oder dap fie ur. 
ipriinglic) die unnatiirlide Stellung erbielten, in dev wir 
jte in B antreffen, und erft durch einen Dritten mit Kunft 
in Die beffere Methenfolge gebracht wurden, in der fie die 
1). A. aufiveist? Bisher Hat man zwar die Frage faft 
etnftimmig im Sinn der Brioritat von Β entjchieden, und 
fyenn die Frage nur jo allgemein geftellt wird, tft die 
MobglichEett nicht zu bejftreiten, daw eine urjpriinglid 
mangelhafte Darftellung fpdter in eine beffere Ordnung 
gebradt wurde. Wunders aber ftellt fich die Gache dar, 
jobald wir fie ndber in MWuge faffen. 

Bleiben wir bet den obigen Beifpielen (S. 395), ἀξ 
fragen wir, ob wohl anzunehmen fet, dab der Schviftiteller, 
row dem die Sentengzen iiber die Wobhlthatighkett urjpriing- 
lich Herrithren, fie in dev zervifjencn Form in B dargeftellt 


1) Aud J. W., der die D. A. im Londoner Guardian Yr. 1998 
sur Anzeige brachte, betrachtet Hermas als den borgenden Theil. 
Chenfo ,,wagt” er die Schrift dem Barnabasbrief mit δ Ὁ auf 
defjen weiter vorgeriicfte Chriftologie voranguitellen, ohne aber das 
VerhaliniZ niiher zu verfolgen. Cr Halt die Bentigung deS Barz 
nabasbriefes durd) D. A. nur fiir ziemlic) untwahrjdeintich. 


400 unt, 


Habe, oder ob ἐδ nicht viclmeby wabridheinlider jet, δαβ 
et die Darftellung in der D. A. geliefert habe? Und 
wenn Diefes Beifpiel nidt gentigt, jo frage man weiter, 
ob das φυλάξεις a παρέλαβες, jo wie es in B fteht, ge- 
irennt und weit getrennt von den Worten, die eigentlich 
Ἰείπιοιι Sinn beftimmen, von einem Original) driftfteller 
Herrithren finne? Die Wntwort fann nicht sweifelhaft 
jet. Die D. A. tft Original und Vorlage von B, nicht 
uimigefehrt. Freilid) erwadhst het diefer WAuffaffung die 
Sciwierigkeit, dak nach iby die urfpritnglid) befjere 
Hronung durch einen Spdteren verjdlechtert wurde. Sie 
ijt indeffen nicht 70 grop und uniiberwindlicd) als diejenige, 
die fic) im umgefehrten Fall ergidt, und bestiglich ihrer 
Vijung ift vor allem an das yu evinnern, was oben in 
Betreff der Cintheilung des 19. Capitels von B bemerft 
wurde. Wenn Barnabas den Stoff παῷ den Gefidts- 
puntten dev Gotteds- und der Nadftenliebe fceiden wollte, 
jo begreift fic) unmittelbar, marum ev die Worte μισήσεις 
πᾶν ὃ οὔκ ἐστιν ἀρεστὸν τῷ ϑεῷ Und οὐ μὴ ἐγκαταλίπῃς 
ἑγτολὰς κυρίου in den erften Dheil feiner Museinanvder- 
febung ftellte. Dag er die in der D. A. auf fie folgenden 
Worte φυλάξεις δὲ ἃ παρέλαβες von ihnen trete, be- 
weist andererjeits allerdings ein grokes Ungeldic. Wber 
ift Denn Barnabas ein Sehviftiteller, an den hohe An- 
forderungen 3u ftellen find? Und ware er diejed παῷ 
cauderweitigen Letftungen, ijt bier die Gace nicht fo τῷ: 
aus flav, dag wir ibn wenigftens in diefem Dbheil vou 
einem groben Mibgriff nicht fretjpredhen fonnen? 

Haben wir das Verhaltnig der betden Schriften in 
dem Vorftehenden richtig beftimmt, fo jind wir der Zeit 
dev D. A. zugleich um einen bedeutenden Sdhritt naber 


Die Doctrina apostolorum. 401 


gefommen. Der Barnabasbrief gehirt nach den Wus- 
fithrungen, die ἰῷ fiirzlich in dev Qu.-Schr. gab, dem Ende 
des erften Jahrhunderts an, und jomit ift rund das 
wayr 100 der terminus ad quem in unferer Frage. 
Weldhes tft aber wetter der terminus a quo? Yd getraue 
mir nidt, ibn πάθον zu beftimmen, da man besziiglid 
feiner doc) nicht itber bloke Vermuthungen hinausfommt. 
Bei dem Ergebnip, das wir gewonnen haben, liegt auch 
wenig Daran, ob er einige Fabre mehr oder weniger von 
Dem terminus ad quem entfernt ift. Gn allen Fallen 
gehirt die D. A. noch dem erften Sabrhundert an, und 
Da auch der Slemensbrief οὐ gegen Ende diejes Jabr- 
hunderts entftanden ift, jo ijt jie ohne Bweifel die altefte 
τις Schrift, die wir auger den Οἱ {ὦ ει Schriften 
befigen *). 

Fragen wir endlich nach der Heimath der Schrift, 
jo diirfte am ebeften an Wegypten zu denfen fein, und 
swar θαι] ὦ aus dem Grunde, weil fie zuerft und 
ohne Biweifel nicht Lange nad) threr Cutftehung durch den 
Verfaffer δὲ Barnabasbriefes beniigt wurde, der aller 
Wabhricheinlidhfeit nach ebenfalls in diejem Lande zu fuchen 
ijt. DMtan hat zwar geglaubt, dap die Verordnung, det 
Dey Daufe unter Umftdnden warmes Wafer anzuwenden, 
auf ein falteres Klima Hinweife, und weil Mordiyrien und 
Kleinafien wegen dev fritheren Wusbiloung der Kirchenver- 
fafjung in diejen Landern nicht follen in Betracht fommen 
fiunen, die Schrift Griedenland oder Macedonien, naber- 


.-.--.-- τ  -ο--.------ 


1) 3. W. fommt im Guardian zu εἴπου abhnlichen Datirung 
jelbft im Gall dev Priovitdt des Barnabagsbriefes, indem ev diejen, 
freilich fchwerlich richtig, auf das Bahr 80 anjett. 

Theol. Quartalfarift. 1884. Heft LIT. 26 


402 Sunf, Die Doctrina apostolorum. 


hin RKorinth, Athen oder Philippi zuerfennen wollen 1). 
Die VBegriindung diirfte indejjen nicht ftichhaltig fein, da 
bet frantlichen und jcdwadlichen Leuten auch in den fitd- 
licheren Ldndern das Waffer bet der Daufe unter πὶ: 
ftanden noch fiinftlic) zu ermdrmen fein wird. 

C3 gebridt mir augenblidlid) an Beit, noch weiter 
auf die Gace ecinzugeben. Cin Bunft fet aber noch furz 
hervorgehoben. Die Auffindung der D. A. nbthigt uns, 
unjere bisherige Wnfidt von der Cntftehung der apo fto- 
{ἰδ ἐπ Conftituttonen gu dudern. Cin oder viel- 
mehr der Hauptgrund, aus dem bisher ein juceffiver 
Urjprung diefes Werkes angenommen wurde, eriweist fich 
jept alZ binfallig. Die von Cujebius erwahuten Adayai 
τῶν ἀποστόλων find nicht auf lebtere3, beg. deffen feds 
evfte Biicher zu begziehen; fie find ein eigenes, bisher 
unbefanntes, aber jest befanntes Werk, und bet diefem 
Sadverhalt fteht der Annahme einer einheitlichen Mb- 
fafjung, bezw. Redaction dev Conftitutionen εὐ 
ein ernftlides Hindernip entgegen, da die auf die erften 
fedh3 Biicher fich befchranfenden apoftolijdhen Didaskalien 
in fyrifder, arabijdher und dthinpijder Sprache nidt fo 
[α als Vorlage de$ Werkes αἵδ᾽ vielmehr αἵδ᾽ Wuszug 
aus demjelben zu betradhten find. Bgl. dariiber die Bez 
merfungen in Lit. Rundfdau 1884 MNro. 4. 

1) J. BW. im Guardian. — Hilgenfeld. 8. f. w. Dh. 
1884 ©. 371, jdlagt bet der S. 393 Anm. 2 als siveifelhaft be- 
handelten Stelle vor, ft. tm αὐτοῦ tod χαταϑέματος 3u Lefer 


an’ κτλ. Demgemafs ware zu iiberjeben: fie werden gerettet wer- 
den bon dem Flude. 


Everybopy will be interested in the opinion of 
80 competent a scholar as Dr. Lightfoot, Bishop 
of Durham, respecting the “Teaching of the 
Twelve Apostles.” At the meeting of the Chureh 
Congress at Carlisle, he read a paper on recent 
biblical research, which gave him excejjent- op- 
poritiity to speak of the Bryennios manuscript. _ 
He says its interest and importance have far ex- 
ceeded our highest expectations. It proves to ~ 
be the basis of the Seventh Book of the Apostolic 
Constitutions ; but this is the least of its signifi- 
cant points, Its great value is in the light which 
it throws on the infancy of the Church. Dr. 
Lightfoot agrees with the English and German 
critics in placing its origin between A. D, 80—110, 
instead of the later date, 140—160, assigned it 
by Bryennios. As to its ecclesiastical signifi- 
cance he says: Ϊ 


ΚΟΥ 6 have both an itinerant and a localized minis- _ 
try, the former consisting mainly of apostles and 
prophets, and the functions of the two shading off 
into one another, so that itis not easy to draw the | 
line between them; and the localized ministry is 
confined to two orders, who are called bishops and 
deacons, as in the Epistle to the Philippians and else- 
where in the Apostolic writings. Where our docu- ? 
ment has ‘bishops and deacons,” the latter work in 
the corresponding passage substitutes ‘ bishops, 
presbyters, and deacons,’ Thus, when our author | 
wrote, ‘bishop’ still remained a synonym for ‘pres- 
byter,’ and the episcopal office properly so-called, 3 
did not exist in the district in which he lived. Now . 
there is no distinct trace of this first state of things . 
—the itinerant ministry side by side with the local- | 
ized—after the Apostolic writings, not even in the 
Apostolic Fathers.” 


The learned Bishop has no doubt of its genu- 
ineness. He says no one could or would have 
forged it. It serves no party’s interests, and: 
pleases nobody, and is to be accepted as the pri- 5 
vate venture of some one who desires to set forth ἡ 
his views on moral conduct and Church order, 
believing them to represent the mind of the 1 
Apostles. The Bishop then points out the 
sources of the quotations in the document: : 


“The Lord’s Prayer is given at length, numerous ἢ 
sayings from the Sermon on the Mount and else- 
where are introduced, the baptismal formula is 
quoted. Occasionally, also, we come across echoes 
of the characteristic language of St. Luke. Coinci- 
dences with St. John are less close. With St. Paul’s 
Epistles, again, the writer shows an acquaintance. 
Coincidences with four of these—Romans, I. Corin- 
thians, Ephesians, and 11. Thessalonians—indicate a ; 
free use of the Apostle’s writings. The picture of 
the Christian ministry, again, is the continuation of | 
the state of things represented in St. Paul’s Epis- 
tles. Remembering that the whole work occupies 
only alittle more than six octavo pages, we are sur- 
prised at the amount of testimony, certainly much , 
more than we had any right to expect, which it 
bears tothe canon of the New Testament. More- 
over, its evidence has a negative value, also. In his 
introduction to the ‘Study of the Gospels,’ Dr. 
Westcott has brought together all the traditional 
sayings of Christ, and the result shows how very 
little was reported outsice the canonical gospels. 
This result is confirmed by the document before 
us.” 


1 


Those who, like the Episcopal scholar vf Nasho- 
tah, attempt to show that Audzeus was the au- 
thor or forger of the ‘‘ Teaching” in the fourth 
century, will have a long task, and a small com- 
pany of adherents. 


‘3 ἘΨΕΒΥΒΟΡΥ will be interested in the opinion of 
80 competent a scholar as Dr. Lightfoot, Bishop 

of Durham, respecting the ‘'Teaching of the 
Twelve Aposties.” At the meeting of the Church 
Congress at Carlisle, he read a paper on recent 


-piblical research, which gave him pxee salto © 


aaa ean Opperr (er Me ML es, / SFS 


ty 


RESULTS OF RECENT HISTORICAL AND TOPO- 
GRAPHICAL RESEARCH UPON NEW TESTA- 
MENT SCRIPTURES.' 


WHEN I took counsel with myself how I should treat the 
subject intrusted to me, and what limitations I should fix to 
the range of topics included in my paper, I soon found that 
I had no choice. The boundary line was distinctly traced 
out for me by circumstances. 

At the Reading Congress a year ago a paper was read on 
this very subject by an able Oxford Professor—avowedly a 
continuation of an inaugural lecture which he had recently 
delivered in the University. In these two papers he had 
traversed the whole ground up to the date of the last 
Congress, and no more competent guide in this province 
could be found. The term “recent” therefore, though 
sufficiently elastic in itself, must receive a very strict inter- 
pretation from me. I am constrained to confine myself 
to the discoveries published within the last twelve months. 
But I take courage in a prophetic passage which I find in 
the able and exhaustive summary by Professor Sanday, to 
which I have already referred. ‘‘ After all,’’ he writes, ‘“‘ we 
are only picking up the gleanings of bygone ages. We 
are not reaping a harvest on virgin soil, and yet of late the 
very gleanings have been so rich, that we cannot refrain 
from hoping that those which he before us in the immediate 


1 Read at the Carlisle Church Congress, 1884, and revised, with additions, by 
the Author. 


JANUARY, 1885. B VOL. I. 


2 RHSULTS OF HISTORICAL AND TOPOGRAPHICAL 


future may be not less so.” This hope has not been 
‘disappointed. 

Having thus restricted the sphere of discussion, I shall 
confine myself to two recent discoveries of great interest 
‘and importance for the earliest history of Christianity. 

I. I will ask you first to accompany me to Asia Minor. 
It is plain that the students of early Christian history are 
‘yet very far from recognising the extreme importance of 
a thorough investigation of this region. Otherwise there 
would be no lack of funds to sustain such explorations as 
those carried on by Mr. Wood at Ephesus and Mr. Ramsay 
in Phrygia. Asia Minor was the principal scene of St. 
Paul’s missionary labours; it was likewise the chief focus 
of Christian thought and action in the second century. Yet 
Asia Minor teems with undiscovered records of the past. 
It would only be an innocent exaggeration if I were to say 
that every spadeful of soil turned up would reveal some 
secret of antiquity. It should be remembered also that in 
these regions Christianity courted publicity with a boldness 
of face which it did not venture to assume elsewhere. 
Thus we may expect to find there not a few memorials of 
the earliest Christian times buried under the accumulated 
rubbish of ages. Even where no distinct Christian records 
are attainable, the contemporary heathen monuments have 
often the highest value in verifying, interpreting, and illus- 
trating the notices in the Bible or in early Christian 
history. Let me give one single illustration, showing how 
an accidental discovery, trivial in itself and apparently alien 
to all the interests of the ecclesiastical historian, may 
lead to results of the highest moment. Among the stones 
disinterred a few years ago by Mr. Wood at Ephesus, was ᾿ 
one containing the name and date of a certain obscure 
proconsul Julianus. Now this proconsul happens to be 
mentioned in the heathen rhetorician Aristides. Thus M. 
Waddington was enabled to correct and revise the chrono- 


RESEARCH UPON NEW TESTAMENT SCRIPTURES. 3 


logy of Aristides’ life. But it so happens that Aristides 
elsewhere refers to another proconsul Quadratus—the same 
who presided at the martyrdom of Polycarp. With these 
data M. Waddington fixed the time of Polycarp’s death some 
twelve years before the received date, and the inferential 
consequences, as affecting Polycarp’s relations with St. John 
and thus bearing on the continuity of Church doctrine 
and practice, have the highest value. More recently the 
labours of Mr. Ramsay, who has explored the comparatively 
untrodden regions of Phrygia with the eye of a scholar 
and antiquarian, have thrown a flood of light on the 
ecclesiastical arrangements of the district; and still greater 
things may yet be expected from their continuance, if 
the necessary funds are forthcoming. In the course of one 
season he discovered about a dozen Christian monumental 
inscriptions belonging to the second and third centuries, 
and dating from the reign of Hadrian onward. To one of 
these sepulchral inscriptions, second to no early monument 
of Christianity in interest, I desire to direct your attention. 
Though not having a very immediate bearing on the Scrip- 
tures, yet indirectly, as indicating the common beliefs and 
practices of the Christians in these early ages, it has the 
highest significance. In the spurious Life of Abercius, 
Bishop. of Hierapolis, as given by the Metaphrast, an in- 
scription is incorporated professing to have been written 
by the saint for his tomb in his own lifetime. Though 
much corrupted and written continuously as if it were 
prose, it is easily seen to fall into hexameter verses. In the 
course of his explorations in 1883, Mr. Ramsay discovered 
in situ a portion of this very epitaph inscribed on an altar- 
shaped tomb, not however at Hierapolis on the Meander, 
but at Hieropolis, a more obscure city near Synnada.! As it 


1 The results of Mr, Ramsay’s explorations will be found in two articles in the 
Journal of Hellenic Studies. The Tale of Abercius, 1882, pp. 339 sq., and The 
Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia, 1883, pp. 424 sq. 


4 RESULTS OF HISTORICAL AND TOPOGRAPHICAL 


answers in all other respects to the notices in the Life 
of Abercius, Hierapolis in the existing text of this Life 
is plainly a corruption for Hieropolis. Thus, from being 
merely a critical puzzle, this epitaph henceforward ranks as 
a historical monument. Though comprising only twenty- 
two lines, it is full of matter illustrating the condition 
and usages of the Church in the latter half of the second 
century. Abercius declares himself to be a disciple of the 
pure Shepherd, who feeds his flocks on mountains and 
plains. This Shepherd is described as having great eyes 
which look on every side. As we read this description, we 
may well imagine it drawn from some pictorial representa- 
tion of the Good Shepherd which the writer had seen in 
the Roman catacombs or elsewhere. But however this 
may be, the underlying theology and the reference to the 
imagery in St. John’s Gospel will be obvious. The author 
says likewise that the Shepherd taught him “faithful 
writings,’ meaning doubtless the Evangelical narratives 
and the Apostolic Epistles. He further sent him to royal 
Rome, where he saw the golden-robed, golden-sandalled 
queen, and a people wearing a bright seal. The queen 
and the seal have been interpreted literally—the one being 
identified with Faustina, the consort of Marcus Aurelius, 
and the other explained of the signet rings worn by the 
higher orders, the senators and knights, among the Romans. 
On the foundation of this supposed interview with the 
empress, a legendary story, full of portentous miracles, has 
been piled. But we can hardly be wrong in giving a 
figurative explanation to these incidents in accordance with 
the general character of the epitaph. The queen will then 
be the Church of the imperial city, and the people wearing 
the seal will be the Christian brethren signed by baptism. 
The writer further tells us that he went to Syria, and 
crossed the Euphrates, visiting Nisibis. Everywhere he 
found comrades—that is, fellow-Christians. Faith led the 


RHSHARCH UPON NEW THESTAMENT SCRIPTURES. 5 


way, and following her guidance he took Paul for his com- 
panion—or, in other words, the Epistles of the Apostle 
were his constant study. Wherever he went, his guide set 
before him for food fish from the fountain. The fountain 
here, it is hardly necessary to say, is baptism, and the fish 
is the Divine ΙΧΘΥΣ, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the 
Saviour; so that this is perhaps the earliest example of 
the acrostic which afterwards became common. This fish 
is further described as ‘‘ exceeding large and clean,” and as 
having been grasped by a pure virgin. Faith gives this fish 
to her ‘‘ friends to eat continually, offering good wine, and 
giving a mixed cup with bread.’ It is needless to dwell 
on the picture which is here presented. The miraculous 
Incarnation, the omniscient omnipresent energy of Christ, 
the Scriptural writings, the two Sacraments, the extension 
and catholicity of the Church—all stand out in definite 
outline and vivid colours, only the more striking because 
this is no systematic exposition of the theologian, but the 
chance expression of a devout Christian soul. A light is 
thus flashed in upon the inner life of the Christian Church 
in this remote Phrygian city. But I would call your 
attention more especially to two points. First. The writer 
describes himself as in his seventy-second year when he 
composes this epitaph. If it was written, as there is good 
reason to believe, as early as the reign of Commodus, or 
perhaps even earlier, he must have been born not later than 
about A.D. 120—some twenty years after the death of St. 
John, who passed the last decades of his life in Kphesus, 
the capital of this same province. Thus he would be reared 
amidst the still fresh traditions of the last surviving Apostle. 
Secondly. He visits the far West and the far East, and 
everywhere he finds not only the same Church and the 
same sacraments, but also, as we may infer from his lan- 
guage, the same, or substantially the same, theology. His 
faith was the faith of the Catholic Church. This monument 


6 RESULTS OF HISTORICAL AND TOPOGRAPHICAL 


therefore is another stubborn protest against certain modern 
theories of early Christian history. Each fresh discovery is 
a fresh nail driven into the coffin of Tubingen speculation. 
IT. From this interesting monumental epitaph I turn to 
a record of a wholly different kind. When in the year 1875 
Bryennios, then Bishop of Serre, published for the first 
time, from a manuscript at Constantinople, the two Epistles 
of Clement complete, he gave a list of the other contents of 
the same volume. Among these was a work entitled The 
Doctrine of the Twelve Apostles. As a work of this name is 
mentioned by Eusebius and others among early apocryphal 
writings, a hope was excited in the minds of those interested 
in such studies, that this might be the book alluded to, and 
that it would throw some light on the vexed question of the 
origin of the Apostolical Constitutions. Hight or nine years 
however elapsed, and no more was heard of it. At length, 
at the close of last year (1883), it was given to the world. 
Its interest and importance have far exceeded our highest 
expectations. It is found indeed to be the basis of the 
seventh book of the Apostolical Constitutions ; but this is the 
smallest item in our gain. Its chief value consists in the 
light which it throws on the condition of the infant Church. 
We are met however with this preliminary difficulty, that 
it does not carry its date on its face, and we must have 
recourse to critical inferences in establishing its age. There 
can be little or no question however, that it is not only the 
work mentioned by Eusebius, but also the work quoted 
by Clement of Alexandria as ‘‘scripture.’”” In the absence 
of any direct indication, it has been placed as late as A.D. 
140-160 by Bryennios, but I do not doubt that we should 
be more near the mark in dating it with most English and 
some German critics somewhere between A.D. 80-110. The 
reasons are briefly these. In the first place, the Hucharist 
still remains part of the Agape. This follows from the fact 
that, in connexion with the Eucharistic prayers, directions 


RESHARCH UPON NEW TESTAMENT SCRIPTURES. 7 


are given about what is to be done when the persons present 
“are filled,” ‘‘ are satisfied.’ But the separation of the two: 
seems to have taken place about the time of the Bithynian 
persecution under Pliny (A.D. 112); and in the age of Justin 
Martyr they are evidently distinct. In the corresponding. 
passage of the later work, the Apostolical Constitutions, the: 
words “ after they are filled’’ are replaced by “after their 
participation,” the alteration of usage requiring an alter- 
ation of phrase. Again, the picture which it exhibits of the 
Christian ministry suggests a very early date. The points. 
to be observed are twofold. Furst, asin St. Paul’s account 
in the First Epistle to the Corinthians and in the Epistle to. 
the Ephesians, so here also we have both an itinerant and a. 
localised ministry—the former consisting mainly of apostles 
and prophets, and the functions of the two shading off into. 
one another, so that it is not easy to draw the line between. 
them ; and, secondly, the localised ministry is confined to 
two orders, who are called bishops and deacons, as in the: 
Hpistle to the Philippians and elsewhere in the Apostolic 
writings. Here again the comparison with the Apostolical 
Constitutions is suggestive. Where our document has 
‘*bishops and deacons,” the later work in the corresponding, 
passage substitutes “‘ bishops, presbyters, and deacons.” 
Thus, when our author wrote, ‘‘ bishop”’ still remained a 
synonym for “‘ presbyter,’ and the episcopal office, properly 
so called, had not been constituted in the district in which 
he lived. Now there is no distinct trace of this first state of 
things—the itinerant ministry side by side with the localised 
—after the Apostolic writings, not even in the Apostolic 
Fathers; while as regards the second point—the identity 
of meaning in the terms “‘ bishop’”’ and “ presbyter ’’—the 
latest example is found in Clement’s Epistle, which was 
written about a.D. 95; andin Asia Minor and Syria at all 
events, episcopacy proper was a recognised institution when 
Ignatius wrote in the early years of the second century. As 


8 RESULTS OF HISTORICAL AND TOPOGRAPHICAL 


our work however may with some probability be assigned to 
Alexandria—for all its affinities are Alexandrian—and the 
march of events was probably not so rapid there as else- 
where, we may perhaps allow the latitude of a few years 
more. But, it will be urged, the description of the “το 
Ways,” with which it commences, is obviously plagiarised 
from the Epistle of Barnabas, and this Epistle cannot be 
placed as early as this date for the plagiarist would require. 
In replying to this objection, I would altogether waive the 
question respecting the date of the Epistle of Barnabas, 
though I might have something to say on this point. But 
when I find two sets of critics, each maintaining with equal 
confidence and with some show of reason, the one that 
Barnabas borrows from the Doctrine, the other that the 
Doctrine is indebted to Barnabas, a third solution is sug- 
gested to my mind as more probable than either. May it 
not have been that neither author plagiarises from the other, 
but that both derive the matter which they have in common 
from a third source? The idea of the Two Ways was 
familiar to Greek philosophers. May not some pious Jew 
then have taken up this idea and interwoven into it the 
moral code of the Old Testament, writing perhaps under the 
mask of a heathen philosopher, who thus was made an 
unwilling witness to the superiority of Jewish ethics? The 
adoption of a heathen pseudonym was not an uncommon 
device with the literary Jew before and about the time of 
the Christian era, as, for instance, in the maxims of the 
pseudo-Phocylides and the predictions of the pseudo-Sibyl- 
lines. The early date which I venture to assign to the 
Doctrine of the Apostles agrees well with its general 
character. There is an archaic simplicity—I had almost 
said a childishness—in its practical directions, which is only 
consistent with the early infancy οἵ ἃ Church. Such, for 
instance, is the test which it suggests of truth and falsehood. 
A true apostle, says the writer, will only remain in a place a 


RESHARCH UPON NEW TESTAMENT SCRIPTURES. 9 


single day or two at most; if a man who sets up for an 
apostle stays a third, he is a false prophet. Of the genuine- 
ness of this document there can be no shadow of doubt. 
No one could or would have forged it. It serves no party 
interests ; it pleases nobody; it is neither sacramentarian 
nor anti-sacramentarian, neither sacerdotal nor anti-sacer- 
dotal, but both (at least in appearance) by turns. We may 
therefore safely use it as a witness; but, while doing so, we 
must be careful not to attribute to it an authority to which 
it lays no claim. It pleads no official sanction. Its title 1s 
not intended to suggest its authorship. We may accept it 
as the private venture of some one who desires to set forth 
his views on moral conduct and Church order, believing 
them to represent the mind of the Apostles. But at the 
same time such a document cannot but reflect fairly well 
the beliefs and usages of the writer’s age and country. A 
further caution is likewise needed. It does not profess to 
be complete. Its desultory character is apparent, for in- 
stance, in the description of the Eucharistic service, which 
is plainly fragmentary. We cannot therefore safely draw 
inferences from its silence. This remark applies especially 
to doctrine, of which it says next to nothing. Observing 
these cautions, we interrogate it with regard to the New 
Testament writings. And here the answer is unexpectedly 
full. The writer quotes large portions of St. Matthew. 
The Lord’s Prayer is given at length; numerous sayings 
from the Sermon on the Mount and elsewhere are in- 
troduced; the baptismal formula is quoted. Occasionally 
also we come across echoes of the characteristic language of 
St. Luke, as for instance, ‘‘ What thank have ye, if ye love 
them that love you” (c. 1), and again “‘ Let not your lamps 
be quenched nor your loins ungirt, but be ready, for ye know 
not the hour in which our Lord cometh” (c. 16). On the 
other hand the coincidences with St. John are less close. 
The writer speaks of “‘ the holy vine of David’’; he uses the 


10 RESULTS OF HISTORICAL AND TOPOGRAPHICAL 


expression “‘ perfect in love’; and in a third passage his 
language is the echo of an injunction in St. John’s Second 
Epistle. These however, though indicating a sympathy 
with St. John’s modes of thought, are not decisive as to a 
knowledge of his writings. Nor indeed if we are right in 
assigning a very early date to this document, are we justified 
in expecting such knowledge. With St. Paul’s Epistles 
again the writer shows an acquaintance. Coincidences with 
four of these—Romans, 1 Corinthians, Ephesians, and 2 
Thessalonians—indicate a free use of the Apostle’s writtings. 
We likewise meet with the precept, ‘‘ Abstain from fleshly 
and bodily lusts,’ which seems to be taken from 1 Peter 1]. 
11, but may possibly be independent. The testimony how- 
ever is not, confined to the passages actually quoted. The 
prominence given here, as in the epitaph of Abercius, to the 
two Sacraments, to,these and these only, is the proper sequel 
to the Lord’s parting commands as related in the Gospels. 
The picture of the Christian ministry again is the continu- 
ation of the state of things represented in St. Paul’s Epistles. 
Remembering that the whole work occupies only a little 
more than six octavo pages, we are surprised at the amount 
of testimony—certainly much more than we had any right 
to expect—which it bears to the canon of the New Testa- 
ment. Moreover, its evidence has a negative value also. In 
his Introduction to the Study of the Gospels, Dr. Westcott has 
brought together all the traditional sayings of Christ, and 
the result shows how very little was reported in the early 
ages outside the canonical Gospels. This result is confirmed 
by the document before us. It contains indeed one quo- 
tation of which the source is not known, ἃ prudential maxim 
of almsgiving introduced with the words, “Τὸ has been said”’; 
but we have no ground for supposing this to. be given as a 
saying of Christ. All the evangelical matter, so far as we 
can trace it, is found within the four corners of our canon- 
ical Gospels. 


RESEARCH UPON NEW TESTAMENT SCRIPTURES. 11 


These are the gleanings—neither meagre nor unimportant 
I venture to think—which a single year has yielded in this 
portion of our field. 


J. B. DUNELM. 


The inscription of Abercius may be restored with tolerable 
confidence, by the use of this threefold help; (1) The text 
in the Metaphrast’s Life of Abercius. (2) The fragments 
on the stone itself. (3) The imitation of it on the tomb of 
one Alexander (A.D. 216) discovered likewise by Mr. Ramsay 
at Hieropolis. It will run as follows :— 


᾿Εκλεκτῆς πόλεως ὁ πολίτης τοῦτ᾽ ἐποίηολ 
Ζῶν, IN EX κδιρῷ COMATOC ἐνθὰ θέειν. 

οὐὔνομ ᾿Αβέρκιός. εἰμι μαθητής ποιμένος ἁγνοῦ, 

dc Βόοσκει προβάτων ἀγέλδο ὄρεοιν πεδίοιο τε, 

5 OdOadmoyc ὅς ἔχει μεγάᾶλογε TIANTH κἀθορῶντδο' 
οὗτος γάρ M ἐδίδδξε. .«γρᾶμμδτὰ TTICTA’ 
εἰς ρώμην Oc ἔπεμψεν ἐμὲν βΒδοίληδν Δθρηδδι 
Kal BaciAICCAN ἰδεῖν YPYCOCTOAON YPYCOTTEAIAON. 
λὰὸν A εἶλον ἐκεῖ λὰμπρὰν ccpareidan ἐἔχοντδ' 

ro KAl Σγρίηο πέλον εἶδ Kal ἀοτεὰ πᾶντὰ, NiciBIN, 
Εὐφράτην διδβάο᾽ πάντη XN ἔοχον cyNomiAoyc’ 
TlafAon ἔχων ἑπόϊμην), πίοτις πάντη δὲ προῆκε, 
KAl πἀρέθηκε τροφὴν TIANTH ἰχθὺν ἀπὸ πηγῆς 
πὰνμεγέθῃ, κἀθὰρόν, ON ἐδράξατο πάρθένος ἁγνή" 

1:5 Kal τοῦτον ἐπέλωκε φίλοιο ἔσθειν διὰ TIANTOG, 
οἶνον χρηστὸν ἔχογοὰ, κέρδομὰ διδοῦοθ, MET ἄρτου. 
TafTa πὸρεοτὼς εἶπον ᾿Αβέρκιος ὧλε Γρδφῆνοι" 
ἑβδομήκοοτον ἔτος Kal δεύτερον HON ἀληθῶο. 
TAYO ὁ νοῶν εὐξζδιτο ὑπὲρ μοῦ πᾶς ὁ ογνῳδόο. 

20 ΟΥ̓ MENTO! τύμβῳ τις ἐμῷ ἕτερον ἐπιθησει" 
εἰ X οὖν, ρωμδίων τὰμείῳ θήσει διοχίλιδ χρυοξ, 
Kal ΧΡΗΟΤΗ͂ πάτρίδι ἹἹεροπόλει χίλιὰ χργοᾶ.. 


| Greek Patriarchate of Constantinople. 


and New Testaments in their order. 


' the 51st leaf is found the Epistle of Barnabas. 


THE TEACHING OF THE TWELVE | 
APOSTLES. | 


BY PROF. ALBERT L. LONG, D.D. 


THE following notes of an examination, which | 
I have just had the opportunity of making, of | 


the ‘‘ Jerusalem manuscript,” from which the re_ 
cent editions of the ‘‘Teaching” have been de- 
rived, will be, perhaps, of some interest to crit- 
ical scholars, as well as to general readers. 

The manuscript is found in the library of the 


Monastery (or Metoche) connected with the Je- | 


rusalem Patriarchate, in the Phanar or Greek 
quarter of Stamboul. This establishment is 
quite distinct from, although near to, that of the 


The library possesses, accerding to the state- 
ment of the librarian, six hundred ancient man- 
uscripts, The Jerusalem manuscript is No. 446* 
of the collection. It is ἃ stont volume, of what 
I would call a small 8vo. It is about eight inches 
long by six wide. It contains one hundred and 
twenty leaves of stout parchment, well pre- 
served, but bearing indubitable marks of age. 
On the first or left hand page of the last leaf 
(or, using. the numeration common in ancient 
manuscripts, page No. 120a) there is a subscrip- 
tion and date—‘‘Finished in the month of June, 
6564 (7. e., A. D. 1056), by the hand of Leon the 
Notary.” 

The contents of these 120 parchment leaves 
are as follows: 


1. The first thirty-two leaves contain what is 
entitled John Chrysostom’s Synopsis of the Old 
Notwith- 
standing the title includes the New Testament, 
the Synopsis, however, finishes with the prophet 
Malachi. 

2. From the 33d leaf to the second page of 


3. From the second page of the 51st (in the 
middle of the page) to the middle of the first 
page of the 70th leaf is found the First Epistle 
of Clement to the Corinthians. 

4, From the middle of the first page of the 
70th, to the middle of the first page of the 76th 
leaf, is the Second Epistle of Clement to the Co- 
rinthians. 

5. On the first page of the 76th leaf, only three 
lines from the bottom, begins the ‘‘ Teaching of 
the Twelve Apostles,” finishing about the middle 


Ne LC σον τς ON I 

*In the edition of the Epistles of Clement, Con- 
stantinople, 1875, by Bishop Philotheos Bryennios, 
taken from this manuscript, the number of the manu- 
script is given as 456. Whether it was a typograph- 
ical error, or the volumes of the Jibrary have been 
renumbered, I could not find out 


—_- 


of the second page of the 80th leaf. The 


lower Ϊ 
half of this page is left blank, while at the be- 


ginning—i.e., on the 76th leaf, between the end 
of the Bedoiid. Epistle of Clement and the begin- 
ning of the ‘‘Teaching,” there is inserted (in 


ink differing slightly in color from other por- | 


tions of the MS., what appears to be simply a 
| list of the names of the books of the Old Testa- 


ment, in Hebrew and Greek, the Hebrew names 
written in the Greek character, making the 
usual uncouth appearance. I have as yet no sat- 
isfactory theory in my miné to account for this 
insertion in this place. Possibly, the copyist 


simply thought to utilize the spare half page of | 


parchment, and after having finished the Sec- 
ond Epistle of Clement, he thought to put ina 
little useful general information ; then, having 
miscalculated his space, and having still three 


or four lines to spare, he began on the ‘* Teach-— 


ing.” 
of trivial and unimportant matter are fre- 
quently found in ancient MSS, 

6. The half page at the close of the “Teaching” 


is left blank ; but the 81st leaf and the half of 


Itis a curious fact that similar insertions — 


the first Gare of the 82d leaf have the Epistle of | 
Mary of Cassaboli to the saint and holy martyr 


Ignatius, Archbishop of Antioch. I regret that 


‘ the circumstances did not allow any closer 
᾿ examination of this disputed epistle, so as to 


throw, if possible, some light upon the question 
of the city to which this lady belonged, and 
whether it was or not Castabala of Cilicia. 


Antioch is called the City of God (Theoupolis) | 
as was customary upon coins of a certain — 


period, 


7. Following this Epistle to the Martyr Saint 
Ignatius, there are twelve epistles from him. 
Now, inasmuch as there are fifteen epistles ex- 
tant, which have been attributed to Ignatius, - 


and out of the fifteen, at the present day eight 


| are rejected by most biblical critics as spurious, 
| the enumeration of the twelve given by this 


manuscript becomes a matter of considerable - 


interest. I will therefore give it: 3 
I. The First is to Mary, two pages. Presum- 
ably a reply to the preceding. 
Il. The Second is to the Trallians, from the 


middle of the first page of the 83d to the mid- \ 


dle of the second page of the 87th leaf. 
11. The Third Epistle is to the Magnesians, 
from the middle of the second page of the 87th, 


to the middle of the second page of the 91st | 


leaf. 


IV. The Fourth h Epistle j is to the Tarsians, and 
extends to the first page of the 94th leaf, ending 
| near the top’of the page. _ 


= es 


--ς 5. 


V. The Fifth Epistle is that to the Philippians 

concerning Baptism, and extends to the middle 
of the second page of the 97th leaf. 

VI. The Sixth Epistle is that to the Philadel- 


phians, and extends to the middle of the first’ 


page of the 102d leaf. 


VII. The Seventh Epistle is that to the Smyr- 


neans, finishing near the bottom of the second 
page of the 105th leaf. 


the Bishop of Smyrna, beginning at the bottom 


about the middle of the second page of the 107th 

leaf. 

Ι 

ans, finishing near the top of the first page of 
the 110th leaf. 

X. The Tenth Epistle is that to Heron, Deacon 
of Antioch, finishing near the bottom of the 
second page of the 111th leaf. 

XI. The Eleventh Epistle is that to the Ephe- 
sians, extending to the middle of the second page 
ofthe 117th leaf. 

XII. The Twelfth Epistle is that to the 
Romans, and finishes five lines and a half from 

| the top of the first page of the last leaf (120) 
of the volume. This is the Epistle to the Romans, 
more generally regarded as the genuine one. The 

‘absence of the amen after the closing words, 
‘¢ Fare ye well to the end in the patience of Jesus 
Christ,” is worth nothing as indicative of agree- 
ment with the text known to English critics as 

the Longer Recension. After these five and a half 
lines, there is one line, well spaced from the 


above, finely written, in the most contracted and q 


abbreviated style of hand-writing, containing 
the subscription and date δύο, mentioned. 
The last half of the page anda part of the last 
page then has, in the same handwriting as the 


rest of the manuscript, an addition in the form | 


of a genealogical note upon the genealogy of 
Joseph and Mary, and evidently following the 
authority of Eusebius, the ecclesiastical his- 
torian. ‘This has doubtless been simply added 
by the copyist in order to utilize the empty 
| jy pamalieant 

ΠΤ was unable to continue as long as I desired 
the examination of this interesting volume. 
There are very many questions of biblical ar- 
| cheeology, which would be touched upon, and some 


VIII. The Eighth Epistle is that to Polycarp, — 


of the second page of the 105th, and finishing | 


IX. The Ninth Epistle is that to the Antiochi- : 


| 


1 


“ΤῸ God alone, the invisible Father of truth, who 
hath sent unto us the Saviour and the Prince of in- 
corruption, through whom also he has revealed unto 
us the truth and the heavenly life; to Him be glory 
for ever and ever. Amen.” 

ROBERT COLLEGE, CONSTANTINOPLE, 

7 
A We have already denied, on the authority of a 
“private note from Professor Long, that he and 
President Washburn were led, on their second 
examination of the manuscript of the ‘‘Teach- 
ing of the Apostles,” to a doubt of the genuine- 
ness of this now famous writing. We have just 
received a fuller and more explicit note from’ 
Professor Long, which we gladly lay before our 
readers : 


Ὡς ——— mew ewe SE 


---- 


TO THE EDITOR OF THE INDEPENDENT: 

In view of the mention made of my name in con- 
nection with certain statements concerning the Je- 
rusalem manuscript, I feel that it would be proper 
for me to make to you the following statement: 

1. Ihave no sympathy with any attempt to throw 
discredit upon the genuineness of the manuscript 
as a whole, or upon the *‘Teaching,” as a part of the 


| Same. 


DI 


2. Notwithstanding a vexatious and annoying 


8 incident, which I had hoped would not be made 


ἢ 


‘public, but which I find imperfectly described in 
various newspaper paragraphs, I have never had 


y any thought of attributing the unwillingness of the 


{ 


| 


probably settled by its careful perusal. The four | 


leaves of the ‘‘ Teaching” are by no means the 


only gold in this mass of ore. The last para- | 


(graph of the Second Epistle of Clement to the | 


‘Corinthians, just preceding the ‘‘ Teaching,” is 


as follows: 


| authorities of the Convent of the Holy Sepulchre to 


have a page of the “ Teaching” photographed to the 
cause suggested. Ihave had several other expla- 
nations, more natural and more satisfactory to my 
mind, although I do not consider it necessary to 
make them public. 

3. The incident above alluded to, while it was 
disappointing, yet furnished me the opportunity of 
examining the manuscript much more thoroughly 
than I could otherwise have hoped to do. In this 
examination, I am bound to say also, the Librarian, 
Sophronius, very cordially gave me every facility 
which I could ask, and showed very plainly that 
he was mortified and grieved at the decision of his 
superior. 

4, Upon that occasion I examined the stitching of 
the sheets. I inserted the photographic fac simile 
of the last page between the pages in some fifteen 
or twenty different places, and carefuily compared 
the handwriting with reference to uniformity in lig- 
atures and abbreviations andin the shape of certain 
letters. The result was that I satisfied myself that 
the volume is entire, written by the same hand; 
that the *‘Teaching” is an integral part of the volume; 
and that there is no reasonable ground for doubting 
the authenticity of the date of the subscription by 
the hand of the copyist, A. D. 1056. 

ALBERT L. LONG. ~ 


ROBERT COLLEGE, CONSTANTINOPLE, Aug. 29th. 


f 


. 
7 


vA Pastor PETERSEN, of Rellingen, has brought 


out a fifteen-page pamphlet on ‘‘The Teaching 
of the I'welve Apostles,” which is remarkable 


among German works on the subject for its con- 


cise dealing with the facts, and for placing the 
date of the ‘*Teaching” anterior to the Epistle of 
Barnabas. The sound common-sense of the 
treatise makes it almost read like an English or 
American work. His reasons for putting it an- 
terior to the Epistle of Barnabas are derived 
from peo intertal evidence of the document 


“Th FeV Dg AH. | 


FALSE xs 
(ὦ. ν ὡς Touts ¢ Levyou,| Veil ; 30, 


itself, In the main, they | are such as have con- 


vinced some of the American and English 


writers ; the parallel passages in the Epistle of 


Barnabas show an amplification, and that of 


such a sort asthe writer of the “Teaching” would 
by no means haye neglected, had it been before 


him to extract from. Pastor Petersen also 


thinks (as the Americans above-mentioned do) 


that the composition of the ‘‘ Teaching” dates |. 


back to the very borders of the Apostolic | ake. 


Anenuich Weert 
DNL 2 dey 


THE TEACHING OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES.* 


HE teaching of the Lord by the twelve Apostles to the nations. 
Chapter I.—There are two ways, one of life and one of death, 


and there is great difference between the two ways. 


The way of life is 


this: first, thou shalt love God that made thee; secondly, thy neighbour 
as thyself, and whatsoever thou dost not wish to be done to thee, do not 


thou to another. 


And the teaching of these two commands is this: 


Bless those that curse you, and pray for your enemies, and fast for 
those who persecute you ; for what thank is there if ye love those that 


love you? 


Do not the Gentiles also the same? 


But love ye those 


that hate you, and ye shall not have an enemy. Abstain from fleshly 


and worldly lusts. 


cloak, give to him also thy coat. 


If a man give thee a blow on the right cheek, 
turn to him the other also, and thou shalt be perfect. 
compel thee to go one mile, go with him twain. 


If ‘a ‘man 
If a man take thy 


If a man take from thee that which 
is thine, do not ask for it again, for indeed thou canst not. 


Give 


to every one that asketh of thee, and do not ask for it again, for the 
Father wishes gifts to be made to all out of the good things which 


each has received. 


Blessed is he that giveth according to tie 
commandment, for he shall be blameless. 


Woe to him that receiveth, 


for if a man receives when he is in need, he shall be blameless, but 


he that is not in need shall be put upon his trial, 


why he has 


received, and for what purpose, and being held fast, he shall be 
questioned about what he did, and he shall not go forth thence until 


he has paid the uttermost farthing 


; but it has been said about this 


also, Let thy alms stick to thy hands until thou knowest to whom 


thou givest. 


Chapter II.—And the second command of the teaching is: 


Thou 


shalt not kill; thou shalt not commit adultery ; thou shalt not corrupt 


boys; 
shalt not be guilty of witchcraft ; 


thou shalt not commit fornication ; thou shalt not steal ; 


thou 


thou shalt not use magical drugs ; 


4 From the MS, lately published by Philotheus Bryennius, Metropolitan of Nicomedia. 


See pp. 62, 112. 


The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles. 93 


thou shalt not be guilty of child-murder by abortion or after birth ; 
thou shalt not covet the things of thy neighbour; thou shalt not 
commit perjury; thou shalt not bear false witness; thou shalt not speak 
evil; thou shalt not dwell upon wrong; thou shalt not be double- 
minded or double-tongued, for a double tongue is a trap of death ; 
thy word shall not be false nor empty, but in accordance with thy 
act. Thou shalt not be covetous, nor rapacious, nor a hypocrite, nor 
ill-behaved, nor proud. Thou shalt not take evil counsel against thy 
neighbour. ‘Thou shalt not hate any man, but some thou shalt 
reprove, and for others thou shalt pray, and others thou shalt love 
above thine own soul. 

Chapter III.—My son, fly from all evil, and from everything 
that is like it. Do not be passionate, for passion leads the way to 
murder; and do not be envious or quarrelsome or ill-tempered, for 
murders spring out of all these things. My son, be not lustful, for 
lust leads to fornication; and do not use foul words, and do not 
cast lewd glances, for from all these things spring adulteries. My 
son, seek not after auguries, since that leads to idolatry ; and do not 
seek after charms or astrology, or lustrations by fire, nor even look 
at these things, for from all these spring idolatry. My son, be not 
a liar, for lying leads to theft; nor fond of money, nor of vainglory ; 
from all these things spring thefts. My son, be not a murmurer, 
since it leads to blasphemy. Do not be obstinate, nor evil-minded, 
for from all these things spring blasphemies. But be meek, for the 
meck shall inherit the earth. Be longsuffering, and merciful, and 
guileless, and gentle, and good, and always fearing the words which 
thou hast heard. Thou shalt not exalt thyself, nor permit haughtiness 
to thy soul. Thy soul shall not be united to the lofty, but thou 
shalt dwell with the just and humble. Thou shalt accept whatever 
happens to thee as good, knowing that nothing takes place without 
God. 

Chapter 1V.—My son, thou shalt remember night and day him that 
speaks to thee the Word of God, and thou shalt honour him as the 
Lord; for where the Lord’s work is spoken of (Κυριότης λαλεῖται), 
there is the Lord. ‘Thou shalt seek out every day the persons of the 
saints, that thou mayest rest in their words. Thou shalt not desire 
schism, but thou shalt set at peace those that are quarrelling. Thou 
shalt judge justly. ‘Thou shalt not accept persons in convicting for 
trespasses. ‘Thou shalt not be doubtful (in prayer), whether it shall 


5 This may mean ‘‘ Where Christ is announced as the Lord.” 


——— τ 
on RE RE 


94 The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles. 


be fulfilled or no. Do not stretch out thy hands to receive, and draw 
them back for giving. If thou hast anything in thy hand, thou shalt 
give a ransom for thy sins. Thou shalt not hesitate to give, nor 
shalt thou murmur as thou givest, for thou wilt know who it is who 
gives good payment in return. Thou shalt not turn away him that 
is in want, but thou shalt share all things with thy brother, and shalt 
not say that they are thy own. For if ye are sharers in that which is 
immortal, how much more in things that perish? Thou shalt not lift 
up thy hand from thy son or from thy daughter, but thou shalt teach 
them the fear of God from their youth. Thou shalt not give 
orders to thy slave or to thy maidservant, who hope in the same God 
with thyself, in ill-temper, lest they shall cease to fear the God who is 
above both; for He is not come to call men with respect to persons, 
but those whom the Spirit hath prepared. And ye slaves be subject 
to your masters, as representing God, with modesty and fear. Thou 
shalt hate all hypocrisy, and everything that is not pleasing to the 
Lord. ‘Thou shalt not forsake the commands of the Lord; but thou 
shalt keep those things which thou receivedst, neither adding thereto, 
nor taking therefrom. ‘Thou shalt confess thy sins in the Church, 
and shalt not come to thy prayer witha bad conscience. ‘That is the 
way of life. 

Chapter V.—And the way of death is this: First of all, itis evil and 


full of cursing; murders, adulteries, lusts, fornications, thefts, 


idolatries, witchcrafts, magic drugs, robberies, false witness, hypocrisies, 
double-heartedness, deceit, pride, malice, self-will, covetousness, evil 
speaking, envy, audacity, arrogance, pomp; persecutors of the good, 
hating the truth, loving a lie, not knowing the reward of righteousness, 
not attaching themselves to the good nor to just judgment ; watching, 
not for good, but for evil; far from meekness and patience, loving 
vain things, seeking a reward, not pitying the poor man, not toiling 
for him who is broken down with toil, not knowing Him who made 
them, murderers of children, corrupters of the creatures of God, men 
who turn away from him who is in want, who lay burdens on the 
afflicted, comforters of the rich, unjust judges of the poor, sinners in 
all things. ‘Turn away, children, from all these. 

Chapter VIJ.—Take care that nobody lead thee astray from this 
way of teaching, for he teaches thee that which does not come from 


God. For if thou art able to carry the whole yoke of the Lord, thou 


shalt be perfect; but if thou art not able, do that which thou canst 
do. And as to meats, bear what thou canst; but take good heed to 


© 


The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles. 95 


abstain from that which is offered in sacrifice to idols, for that is 
worshipping dead gods. 

Chapter VII.—About baptism, baptize thus. After having recited 
all that has preceded, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the 
Son, and of the Holy Ghost, in living water; and if thou hast not 
living water, baptize into other water ; and if thou canst not in cold 
water, then in warm ; but if thou hast neither, pour water upon the 
head thrice in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the 
Holy Ghost. And before baptism let him that baptizes, and. him 
that is baptized, and any others that can, fast; and thou shalt 
command the baptized to fast one or two days previously. 

Chapter VIII.—Let not your fasts be with the hypocrites, for they 
fast on the second and fifth day of the week ; but you should fast on 
the fourth and on the day of preparation (Friday); and do not pray 
as the hypocrites, but as the Lord commanded in His Gospel, so pray 
ye :—Our Father which art in heaven, hallowed be Thy name; ‘Thy 
kingdom come; ‘Thy will be done, as in heaven, so on earth; 
give us this day our daily bread ; and forgive us our debt, as we also 
forgive our debtors; and lead us not into temptation, but deliver us 
from evil: for Thine is the power and the glory, for ever. Pray thus 
three times a day. | 

Chapter [X.—Concerning the Eucharistical prayer, thus give thanks. 
First, about the cup: ‘‘ We give thanks to Thee, our Father, for the 
holy vine of David Thy servant (παιδός cov), which Thou hast made 
known to us by Jesus, Thy Child (παιδός cov). Τὸ Thee be the glory 
for ever.” And about the broken bread : “‘ We give thanks to Thee, 
our Father, for the life and knowledge which Thou madest known unto 
us through Jesus, Thy Child. To Theebe the glory forever. As this 
bread which we break was once scattered over the hills, and gathered 
together it became one, so may Thy Church be gathered from the 
ends of the earth into Thy kingdom ; for Thine is the glory and the 
power, through Jesus Christ, for ever.” And let no one eat or drink 
of your Eucharist, except those who are baptized in the name of the 
Lord; for about this the Lord said: “Give not that which is holy 
to the dogs.” 

Chapter X.—And after reception [lit., after ye are filled] thus give 
thanks: ‘“ We give thanks to Thee, Holy Father, for Thy Holy Name, 
which thou madest to dwell in our hearts, and for the knowledge and 
faith of immortality, which Thou madest known to us through Jesus, 
Thy Child. To Thee be the glory for ever. Thou, Almighty Lord, 


96 The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles. 


didst create all things for Thy Name’s sake, and didst give food and 
drink to men for enjoyment, that they may give thanks unto Thee; 
and on us Thou bestowedst spiritual food and drink and eternal life, 
through Thy Child; and above all we give thanks to Thee for Thy 
power (ὅτι δυνατὸς et). To Thee be the glory for ever. Remember, O 
Lord, hy Church, to deliver it from all evil, and to perfect it in Thy 
love, and gather it from the four winds, the sanctified Church, into 
Thy kingdom, which Thou didst prepare for it ; for Thine is the 
power and the glory for ever. Let grace come, and let this world 
pass away. Hosanna to the Son of David! If any be holy, let 
him come; if not, let him repent. Maranatha. Amen.” And allow 
the prophets to offer what Eucharistical prayers they please. 

Chapter XI.—Whoever then shall come and teach you all the 
foregoing, receive him; but if the teacher himself turn and teach 
another doctrine, so as to overthrow this, you must not listen to him ; 
but if his object is to teach righteousness and knowledge of the Lord, 
receive him as the Lord; and as to apostles and prophets, treat them 
according to the rule ofthe Gospel. Let every apostle who comes to 
you be received as the Lord; but he shall not abide more than one 
day, and if need be, one more; but if he remain three days, he is a 
false prophet. Let the apostle who comes out receive nothing but 
bread to last him until he reach his destination; but if he asks for 
money, he is a false prophet. Ye shall not try or discern a prophet 
who is speaking in the spirit, for every sin shall be forgiven, but this 
sin shall not be forgiven. But it is not everybody who speaks in the 
spirit who is a prophet, but if he have the ways of the Lord. The 
false and the true prophet, therefore, will be known by their ways. 
A prophet who appoints a table, speaking in the spirit, shall not eat 
of it; ifhe do, he is a false prophet. Anda prophet who teaches the 
truth, if he does not do that which he teaches, is a false prophet. A 
prophet approved and true, who gathers Church assemblies for a 
worldly mystery,® but does not teach others to do what he does 
himself, shall not be judged by you, for he has his judgment of God ; 
for thus did also the ancient prophets ; but whosoever shall say in the 
spirit, give me money, or something else, ye shall not listen to him ; 
but if he desire you to give in behalf of others who are in want, let no 
man judge him. 

Chapter XII.—Let every one who comes in the name of the Lord 

6 This is supposed by Bryennius to mean asymbolicalact, such as we find in Ezek. iv. 1, xii. 3, 


&c. ; but more probably it means a secular art or science taught by the prophet ; for every art or 
science which had to be imparted by technical rules was called a ‘‘ mystery.” 


The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles. 97 


be received, and then by testing him ye’will know what he is, for ye 
will have understanding right hand and left.” If he who comes is a 
wayfarer, help him as much as you can ; but he shall not remain with 
you more than three or four days, if need require ; and if he wishes 
to settle with you, if he is a workman, let him labour and so let him 
eat; but if he has no occupation, take measures according’ to your 
discretion that he do not live as an idle Christian with you; and if 
he will not do thus, he is one that makes a gain of Christ. Beware 
of such men. 

Chapter XIII.—But every true prophet who wishes to remain with 
you is worthy of his meat; so too, a true teacher, like the labourer, 
is also worthy of his meat. ‘Thou shalt therefore take and give to the 
prophets the first-fruits of the press and of the threshing-floor, of oxen 
and of sheep, for they are your high priests ; and if you have not a 
prophet, give them to the poor. If thou makest a feast, take the first- 
fruits and give them according to the commandment. In like manner, 
when thou openest a jar of wine or of oil, take the first-fruits and give 
it to the prophets, and take the first-fruits of thy silver and of thy 
clothes, and all that thou possessest to the extent that shall seem good 
to thee, and give it according to the commandment. 

Chapter XIV.—Assemble yourselves on the Lord’s Day, and break 
bread and give thanks, having confessed your transgressions, that 
your sacrifice may be pure. And if any one has a dispute with his 
companion, let him not join you until they be reconciled, that your 
sacrifice be not desecrated ; for this was what was said by the Lord: 
“Τῇ every place and time ye shall bring to me a pure sacrifice; for I 
am a great king, saith the Lord, and my name is wonderful amongst 
the Gentiles.” 

Chapter XV.—Appoint, therefore, for yourselves bishops and 
deacons worthy of the Lord, meek, not fond of money, true and tried 
men; for they, too, minister unto you the ministry of the prophets and 
teachers. Do not, therefore, neglect them, for they are your honoured 
ones with the prophets and teachers. Reprove one another, not in 
anger but peacefully, as ye have it in the Gospel; and if a man does 
wrong against another, let no one speak to him, nor any of you listen 
to him, until he has repented. And perform your prayers and alms 
and all your acts so as ye have it in the Gospel of our Lord. 

Chapter XVI.—Watch for your life; let not your lamps be 


7 That is, ‘‘Ye have understanding enough to distinguish your right hand from your left,” 
Cf. Jonah iv. rz. 


NO. XXX. H 


rendered ‘‘through Jesus Thy Son.” 


- Inchap. v. φαρμακεῖαι 15 translated ‘philtres” ; 


- 


in its parchment cover and on antique paper, 


98 Episcopal Supervision on the Continent. 


extinguished, nor your loins ungirt, but be ready; for ye know not 
the hour in which our Lord cometh. And ye shall assemble your- 
selves together frequently, seeking the things that belong to your 
souls ; for the whole time of your belief will not profit you unless ye 
be perfected in the last moment. For in the last days the false 
prophets and corrupters will abound, and the sheep shall be turned 
into wolves, and love shall be turned into hatred ; for as lawlessness 
increases, men will hate one another, and persecute and betray one 
another ; and then shall appear the world-deceiver as Son of God, and | 
he shall do signs and wonders, and the earth shall be delivered into 
his hands, and he shall do unlawful things such as never have been 
done from the beginning of the world. Then the race of mankind 
shall come to the trial of the refiner’s fire, and many shall be offended 
and perish, but they that remain in their faith shall be saved under 
the very curse. And then the signs of the truth shall appear; first, 
the sign of the outspreading ;° next, the sign of the voice of the 
trumpet; and thirdly, the resurrection of the dead—not however, of 
all, but as it was said, “‘The Lord shall come, and all His saints 
with Him.” Then the world shall see the Lord coming upon the 
clouds of heaven. 


The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles. Διδαχὴ Harnack, interpolate TY 
τῶν δώδεκα ᾿Αποστόλων. A Translation with chapter παντὰ προφητὴν - τος 
Notes, and Excursus (I.-IX.) 
of the ‘‘ Teaching,” and the Greek Text. of course, b 
By Canon Spence. (Nisbet.) 


Tus edition of Lhe Teaching of the Apostles, 


ι 


J 
| 


In the same: 


makes an attractive-looking volume. Canon 
Spence’s translation is good; but there are a 
few points to which attention may be called. 


should it not rather be “ druggings” ? In 1- 
the same chapter φθορεῖς πλάσματος Θεοῦ, 


‘“‘corrupters of the image of God,’ should 
certainly be ‘‘ corrupters of God’s handiwork.” 
In chap. ix. διὰ ᾿Τησοῦ τοῦ παιδός σου is twice 
That 


the authorised version renders παῖδα by 


ες ““son”’ in the Acts cannot be held to justify 


this translation. 


Canon Spence would have 
done better to follow the precedent of the 
Revised Version and given ‘servant.’ In 
vhap. Xl. ob μενεῖ δὲ ἡμέραν μίαν, “he shall 
not stay more than one day.” This is ap- 
parently the meaning, but it is an impossible 
rendering of the text as it stands. We must 
either, with Hilgenfeld, omit the οὐ, or, with 


with the one or two difficulties of the piece. 
Πᾶς δὲ προφήτης . . . ποιῶν εἰς μυστήριον, 
ἱκοσμικὸν ἐκκλησίας (chap. xi.), where Harnack 
takes ποιῶν absolutely, translating ‘‘der in 
Hinblick auf das irdische Geheimniss der 
Kirche,’’? Canon Spence translates ‘every, 
prophet who summons assemblies for the pur- 
pose of showing an earthly mystery.’ This; 
gives so good a sense that one wonders any) 
other should have been suggested; but the 
objection probably is the use of ἐκκλησίας in a 
sense which it has almost lost in the New! 
Testament, and that the arrangement of the} 
words is too artificial for the rude style of the | 


| 
writer. By the ‘earthly mystery” Canon Harnack draws the former, and Canon Spence. 
Spence understands, with Bryennios, a sym- the latter; but which of the two is right Τῇ 
bolic action, ike Ezekiel’s laying siege to theldoubt if there are any means of deciding. 
tile, and by ἀρχαῖοι προφῆται the prophets of!Canon Spence thinks that he sees signs that 
the Old Testament. This, in spite of Har-/the apostolate was an office which was fast 
jnack, must surely be right. Even if the/passing away. Now this, I submit, is just. 
Teaching was written in the second quarter/what we do not see. At the same time, it. 
jot the second century, if the author was/may be admitted, there is nothing in the 
j acquainted with the Old Testament at 411, Teaching, assuming its early date, inconsistent — 
jhe could hardly mean by ‘the ancient/with the common view that all apostles must 
| prophets ” any but those of the older dispensa-| have been witnesses of the Resurrection. That. 
| tion. At any rate, we may remember that the apostles of our treatise claimed, indeed, | 
| the prophets of the primitive Church some+ to have received their commission from Christ _ 
| times used symbolic actions, as is clear from in person (it might be by supernatural means, | 
the example of Agabus. as in the case of Paul) need not, from any. 
In the same chapter, immediately above, is|point of view, be questioned; but to make. 
| the other chief difficulty. Kat πᾶς προφήτης them necessarily contemporancous with the | 
| ὁρίζων τράπέζαν ἐν πνεύματι, κιτιλ. This Canonzoriginal twelve, would not this require a higher > 
] Spence translates, ‘And no prophet who intantiquity for the Teaching than even Canon 
ἢ the Spirit orders a love-feast eats himself of'\Spence would ascribe to it? Canon Spence _ 
it.” Probably this is substantially the mean-‘also lays stress on the position of the episco. 
a | ing, though for love-feast should be substi-'pate. Bishops and deacons are mentioned as Ϊ 
tuted a more general expression, such as alif they were almost on a par, and they both | 


͵ 
' 


dinner, 7.e., for the poor. If the prophet’s alike hold their office by the election of the i 
|chief object is to get a dinner for himself,/people. ‘‘Early in the second century,” | 
|then he is a false prophet. In chap. xvi.jsays Canon Spence, ‘‘the genuine epistles οὗ 
ὑπ᾽ αὑτοῦ τοῦ καταθέματος is translated ‘ under Ignatius [but which are they ?] testify with © 
the very curse”; but, in the note, it is ex-‘ample fulness to the rise of the episcopal 
plained that the ‘‘very curse” is Jesus him- power.” Probably the first quarter of the it 
self, who is here so-called ‘in terrible irony.”’ second century is precisely the period of 4 
This is probably the true meaning; but, if so, church history of which we are most ignorant; _ 
we ought to read not “under,” but ‘‘by the/and, notwithstanding the assertion, quoted ᾿ 
very curse.” from Bishop Lightfoot, that ‘early in the ] 
| Canon Spence’s notes are generally ex-|second century the episcopal office was firmly | 
|cellent. It is, however, no harm to pointland widely established,’ 1 cannot think this — 
out that the word Trinity does not, of course, /argument conclusive. There are some strong 
occur in the text, though Canon Spencelreasons for believing that the Teaching may | 
writes as if it did) The Excursus in thisjbelong to the first century, but the evidence © 
volume are an able, though far from ex-/cannot be pronounced conclusive; and, con- } 
hhaustive, treatment of the several points of'sidering the darkness which still hangs over — 
‘interest raised by this treatise. They are too the post-apostolic age, the safest, if not the | 
short to be in all respects satisfying, and are most satisfactory, course is to hold one’s judg- — 
not to be compared to the elaborate essay of ment in suspense. Ἱ 
| Harnack. One of the most important features Rozert B. ΠΕΟΜΜΟΝΡ. 
of the original work, it is well known, is the _ Hy 
position assigned to the apostolate, the apostles = ! 
| being represented as men in active employ- 

|ment, travelling from place to place, and 

i/from one of whom a visit might any day be 
Nlexpected. Now from this circumstance one ᾿ 
‘of two inferences inevitably follows: either. 1 | 
‘/that the apostolate continued some way into. : =| 
[the second century, or that the Teaching | 
ΕἸ θΘΙοηρθ to the first. Of those inferences 
ἢ Ἤν 4 ὃ 


or 


112 LVotices. 


, : 4 4 A 4 ιν 46 
τὸ By he w Serres tA. Cluol. Chiro ἐκ «ΚΑ, vier 
Dy “as (e¢ePaotices, VU" SO 


¢ 

AIAAXH TON AQAEKA AIIOSTOAQN, ἐκ TOD ἱεροσολυμιτικοῦ χειρο- 
γράφου νῦν πρῶτον ἐκδιδομένη μετὰ προλεγομένων καὶ σημειώσεων 
ὑπὸ ΦΙΛΟΘΕΟΥ BPYENNIOY, μητροπολίτου Νικομηδείας. [Ἔν 
ἹΚωνσταντινουπόλει, 1883. Pp. 149 and 75.}} 


There are four ancient documents so similar in their subject- 
matter, and in the phraseology in which the ideas are clothed, that 
they must have been copied from each other or derived from a 
common original. ‘These are (1) the Epistle of Barnabas; (2) the 
Seventh Book of the Apostolical Constitutions; (3) a treatise first 
published by Bickell in 1843, and reprinted by Hilgenfeld in 1866, 
with the double title, ‘‘ The Constitutions delivered by Clement, and 
the Ecclesiastical Canons of the Holy Apostles,” and “ An Epitome 
of the Appointments of the Holy Apostles of Catholic Tradition ;” 
(4) “The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles,” now edited by 
Philotheus Bryennius, first known to Western Churchmen as one of 
the two Archrimandrites from Constantinople who attended the 
Bonn Conference of 1875, then as Metropolitan of Serree and editor 
of St. Clement’s Epistles, and now as the learned Metropolitan of 
Nicomedia. What is the relation in which these documents stand 
to each other ? 

Can the Epistle of Barnabas be the original of the other three? 
No. For while there are parts of the Epistle which are identical 
with parts of the other treatises, there are points in which those 
treatises agree with one another which are not found in the Epistle 
of Barnabas. Is the Seventh Book of the Constitutions the original ? 
No. For names and things of a more modern date are found in 
the Seventh Book of the Constitutions substituted for their earlier 
equivalents in the “ Teaching,” e.g. where the ministry of “prophets” 
is spoken of in the ‘‘ Teaching,” that of ‘“ presbyters” is found in 
the Constitutions. Presbyters and prophets were, it is true, coeval, 
but as prophets passed away, while presbyters continued, a later 
document would not have substituted prophet for presbyter, and 
therefore the ‘ Teaching” must be more ancient than the Constitu- 
tions. Is the Epitome the original? No. For it assumes that 
Peter and Cephas are different persons, and that Nathanael (in 
addition to Bartholomew) was one of the Twelve. It could not 


1 See above, p. 92, for the translation of this treatise. 


LVotices. ΤῸ 


have, therefore, been written for at least two or three hundred years 
after the time of the Apostles. Is the.'“’Teaching” the original? 
No. For internal evidence shows that if one be derived from the 
other, the Epitome must be older than the ““ Teaching.” ” 

It remains that all four of these treatises are recensions of a 
common original. It would appear that there was a document 
known as the ‘“ Teaching of the Apostles,” which was regarded as 
a common property of the early Christians. In its original form it 
was probably confined to the practical and moral instructions with 
which the treatise published by Bryennius commences. But very 
soon there was added to it an instruction on the two sacraments, on 
the ministry, and on the last day, and the whole was still called the 
“Teaching of the Apostles.” The first to make use of this document 
was the author of the Epistle of Barnabas, who has embodied in his 
work almost the whole of the first section of the “Teaching,” and 
—a noticeable thing—has a quotation also from the last chapter of 
it. A passage from it is also cited in the “Shepherd of Hermas.” 
Next, probably, appeared the treatise now published by Bryennius, 
which may be regarded as the second recension of the original work, 
published early in the second century. Then would follow the 
Seventh Book of the Constitutions in the third century, and the 
Epitome in the fourth. 

Besides the proof (in itself sufficient) which we have already given 
that Bryennius’ treatise is not (as he claims) the original work, there 
are grammatical indications of the same fact. We will give a few 
instances. “Thou shalt not be of doubtful mind whether it shall 
be or no” {πὸ Teaching,” chap. iv.). This passage in the 
Epitome takes the form, “In thy prayer thou shalt not be of 
doubtful mind whether it shall be or no” (chap. i.); and in the 
Constitutions, ‘‘Be not of doubtful mind in thy prayer whether it 
shall be or no, for the Lord said to Peter on the sea, O thou of 


2 As proof sufficient, we cannot do better than refer to the Church Quarterly Review for April, 
from which we extract the following :—‘‘ The following is a delicate but convincing proof that 
Bickell’s Epitome is not derived from the ‘ Teaching,’ but wice versd, unless they are both 
taken from a common original. ‘The first six chapters of the ‘Teaching’ consist of moral and 
practical instructions, such as ‘Do not kill; do not covet; do not be envious; do not lie.” At 
irregular intervals, coming sometimes more, sometimes less thickly together, these precepts are 
preceded by the words ‘My son.’ We see no reason why these words should be sometimes 
inserted, sometimes not ; and we ask who it is that says‘ My’? ‘Turn to the Epitome, and 
these difficulties are cleared up. Those words commence new instructions, given, as is there 
represented, by one and another Apostle. ‘Thus in the third chapter of the ‘leaching,’ we have, 


‘My son, flee from all evil. . . . My son, be not lustful. . .. My son, seek not after auguries. 
. . . Myson, be not a liar.’ But in the Epitome we find, ‘Andrew said, My son, flee from 
all evil. . . . Philip said, Son, be not lustful. . . . James said, Son, seek notafter auguries. .. . 


Nathanael said, Son, be not a liar.’ By a well-known rule of criticism, it follows that the 
Epitome was the original of the ‘Teaching,’ unless they both come from a common source, as 
is otherwise proved to be far the most likely hypothesis,” 


NO. XXX. I 


ΤΙ4 Notices. 


little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?” Here it would seem that 
the epitomist who wrote the “Teaching” left out the explanatory 
words of the original, which the other two recensions have preserved. 
Again, in chapter v. we find a number of nominative cases without 
a verb attached: the Constitutions supply the verb. Once more, in 
chapter xu. we read, “ For ye will have understanding right hand and 
left.” What does it mean? ‘The Constitutions read, ‘For ye have 
understanding, and are able to know the right hand or the left.” 


Here the editor of the ‘‘ Teaching ” has apparently cut the materials _ 


lying before him too short for clearness, while the editor of the 
Constitutions has been more careful. Apparently, too, the editor 
of the ‘‘ Teaching” has from the same cause made a mistake in 
chapter xiv. His text is, ‘Assemble yourselves on the Lord’s Day of 
the Lord” (κυριακὴν Κυρίου) ; while the Constitutions have no doubt 
preserved the reading of the original, ‘‘ Assemble yourselves on the 
day of the resurrection of the Lord, we mean the Lord’s Day” 
(chap. xxx.). 

But though not itself the original, it is plainly evident that the 
“Teaching” is a very early recension of the original. ‘This is shown 
not only by the prominent position assigned to the prophets, to 
which we have already referred, but also by other indications not 
to be mistaken. We will cite one which does not lie on the surface. 
In the liturgical directions as to the Eucharist we find a very remark- 
able word used for the reception—pera τὸ éurAyobjvar—“ after ye 
are filled ;” whereas in the Constitutions the ordinary words—pera 
τὴν petadnpw—< after the reception,” are used. ‘The word in the 
“Teaching” indicates that the partaking of the consecrated elements 
took place at the same time as the love feast, as was the case in 
the time of St. Paul (1 Cor. xi.). It was still the custom for the 
Christians to bring their offerings of bread and wine, and a part of 
their offerings having been taken and consecrated as the .Lord’s 
Body, to eat the feast of charity and consume the consecrated 
elements one after the other, carefully “discerning ” the one from 
the other, and giving thanks for the whole at the conclusion of the 
feast. ‘Thus wecan understand the words “ after ye are filled.” Ata 
later date, when the two feasts—the feast of charity and the sacred 
feast—were separated from one another, the words “ after the recep- 
tion” were naturally substituted. 

The treatise given to the world by Bryennius has made a con- 
siderable stir in the religious world, as we predicted in our last 


Notices. ΤΙΝ 


number would be the case. The reviewer in the Guardian accepts 
Bryennius’ hypothesis that the “Teaching” is the original apocryphal 
work so known, and suggests an earlier date for it than that which 
Bryennius has himself proposed, hazarding the conjecture that it 
may belong to the first century. The reviewer in the Church 
Quarterly Review, with greater caution, pronounces it to be a 
recension of the original apocryphal work. Dr. W. Adams, of 
Nashotah, in the (American) Churchman, suggests that it is an 
adaptation of the original apocryphal work made by Audeeus in 
the fourth century for sectarian purposes. Archdeacon Farrar deals 
with it in the Contemporary Review. Probably we may be safe 
in concluding as follows. A pious Christian at the end of the first 
century, reading Acts ii. 42, ‘And they continued steadfastly in 
the Apostles’ teaching and fellowship, in the breaking of bread and 
the prayers” (R. V.), undertook the task of setting forth, in a 
dramatic form, what was this ‘‘ Teaching of the Apostles.” Having 
done this, and perhaps published it with the alternative name of the 
“Two Ways,” he may have proceeded to expound the remainder of 
the verse for the use of his unlettered co-religionists by giving, in 
like form, a statement as to the ministry, the Sacraments, and the 
Sunday services, adding to it the received views as to the last day. 
This document became known as the “ Teaching of the Apostles,” 
not as emanating from them, but as being the title adopted for the 
book by the pious author from Actsil. 42. Accepted as, on the whole, 
a fair statément, it was quoted or made their own by the writer of 
Barnabas’ Epistle, by the Shepherd of Hermas, by the unknown 
writer of the treatise now published by Bryennius, by the compiler 
of the Constitutions, and by the author of the Epitome. Its value 
is discounted by its having already been before us in all its essential 
features in the Seventh Book of the Constitutions. 

The instruction to be derived from this ancient document may be 
thus summarized :—First, the “‘ Teaching of the Apostles” is in the 
mind of the writer primarily moral and practical. Secondly, the 
prominent ceremonies of the early Christians are two—Baptism and 
the Eucharist. Thirdly, baptism was administered by water and the 
appointed words; no oil, salt, or other material are known, nor any 
ritual adopted beyond that of dipping or trine affusion. Fourthly, 
the Eucharist was celebrated every Sunday in conjunction with the 
Feast of Love, as it was in the time of St. Paul: fasting was not 
required of recipients of the Eucharist, but it was required of (adult) 

12 


116 Lotices. 


recipients of baptism. Fifthly, the Eucharist was regarded as a 
sacrifice of thanksgiving, made in joyous acknowledgment of God’s 
goodness and power in giving food to support man’s life and spiritual 
sustenance to Christians. Sixthly, the ministry of the Church con- 
sisted still in part of those who received extraordinary charismata, 
such as the prophets and teachers, in part of the ordinary clergy, 
viz. bishops, i.e. presbyters, and deacons, the Apostles themselves 
(who are represented as the authors of the instructions given), 
supplying the highest order: there was also a class of itinerating 
or missionary preachers termed apostles, whom, as well as prophets 
and teachers, we find in the New Testament. Seventhly, a personal 
Antichrist was expected in the last days, and a second Advent of 


Christ was looked for. 


BAPTISM IN EARLY ART. 


Tur May number of The Andover Review | 


contains. an article which will be of 
great interest to students of Christian 
archeology. Prof. Egbert C. Smyth col- 
lects and discusses the pictorial represen- 
tations of baptism found in the Catacombs, 
which cover the period from the latter part 
of the second century to the middle of the 
sixth. Seven of these pictures are repro- 
duced from the plates of Garucci and De 
Roast: in all of which, except one, baptism 
is represented as by affusion. In the other 
case, the oldest of all these figures, Christ 
is represented as in the water, while John 
stands on the bank and takes his hand to 
help him out. The general representation 
seems to be of the candidate standing naked 
in water ankle deep, while the administrator 
stands clothed on the bank and showers the 
water freely over the head of the candi- 
date. : 
Professor Smyth accepts Neander’s con- 
clusion that the prevalent early form of 


baptism was by immersion; but he raises : 


| the question how it can bethat, if only bap- 
tism by immersion was known in the first 


| centuries, the only form of baptism figured λ 


in the oldest art that has come down to us, 
that which dates back to the second cen- 
| tury, and which is repeated for centuries 


| a8 850 baptized. 


pion and the other affusion. The question - 


) afterward, the prevalent form is by affusion. 
| It would seem that, if immersion were 


practiced elsewhere, affusion was certainly 
known in Rome. There must have been | 
at least a tradition preserved in art that 

pouring water on the head was true baptism, 
and that it was proper to represent Christ 


The writings of the early fathers, how- 
ever, have shown that as far back as the 
middle of the third century baptism was 
almost always by immersion, or, rather, | 
submersion. The Epistle of Cyprian to. 
Magnus is sufficient proof of this. Cyprian |) 
Seems not to have known any other bap- | 
tism than complete immersion, and is not | 
certain whether, even in the case of the sick, 
affusion were allowable. He permits it, 
but with some question. It is curious that. 
jthere should be this conflict between the 
two sources of evidence, the literary and 
she iconographic, the one favoring immer- 


ecessarily is raised, and is not wholly easy 
Ὁ answer: Which represents the earlier tra- 
ition? Which will preserve in the most. 
bonservative way the first practice? 

[ Here the ‘‘Teaching of the Twelve } 
postles” brings us some new light. It | 
hows us the practice of the end of the 
rst or the beginning of the second cen- 
iy, as preserved in literature, not in art 


. 
᾿ 


| While it is not wholly clear, it shows that 
_ baptism by affusion was by no means so 


 exceptionala method as in the time of Cyp- 


It was to be used not on account of : tion. In the seventh section, that on baptism, 


rian, 
sickness only, but wherever there was a 
scarcity of water. This allows that the bap- 


_tism described as ‘‘in” or ‘‘into” living or 


other water, when water was abundant, 
was. by immersion, not of the feet only, as 
‘in theart of the Catacombs, but by com- 
plete immersion, though the language will 
allow. either. The candidate was to be 
baptized ‘‘in living water” (not ‘néo here), 
that is water as of a river, stream, sea, lake, 
well or fountain ; 


be had then ‘‘into other water’ (here the 


} 


᾿ΒΡΓΌΠΡ up as a corruption. 


merit 


preposition changes), and this water might 


_be either the cold water of a cistern, or, if 
this could not be had, hot water, probably 


that of a public or private bath. But if 


_ water enough for this could not be had, 


then it was enough to pour water over the 
head three times. This last is called bap- 
tism as well as the ordinary mode; and it 


is immediately after mentioning this mode | 
by affusion that the document proceeds, | 


ἐς Before baptism, let the baptizer and the 
baptized fast.” ; 


All this does not prove that between the | egret : 
eee ray τ Testament and the’ etc.)] Πρὸ dé τοῦ βαπτίσματος προνηστευσάτω 
>< Teaching,” if the latter is subsequent to 


the use of affusion had not 5 Hea cee ee 
-| νὸν πρὸ μιᾶς ἣ Ovo, 


| We translate the first part of this passage once 
' more, with Bryennios’s Greek notes: 


the. former, 
Each one can 
judge for himself whether this is probable. 
This, at least, is clear to us, that, whatever 


| may have been the practice of the Early 


Church on this subject, at the end of the 


| first century, or soon after, the method 


pictured in the Catacombs was regarded as 
perfectly legitimate. Certainly, to-day, 
with what we know of the unimportance 
of the ritualism, it cannot be regarded as 
justifiable to refuse full and equal Chris- 
tian fellowship to any on the mere ground 
that they have not received the ceremony 


if living water could not. 


Τ 
! 


Havinea translated Harnack’s version of the 
most important part of the newly discovered 


“Teaching of the Apostles,” we find it neces-_ 


sary to make one somewhat important correc- 


instead of ‘‘sprinkle the head,” as our trans- 
lation gave it, from an indefinite word in the 


German, meaning to wet, it should be ‘pour out 
Ϊ upon the head,” the Greek verb being éxyéw, 


As this is a somewhat inmiportant passage we give 
the Greek text: 

Περὶ tov βαπτίσματος, οὕτω βαπτίσατε" ταῦτα 
πάντα προείποντες, βαπτίσατε εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ 
Πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ Ὑἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἀγίου Πνεύματος ἐν 
ὕδατι ζῶντι, [Here, in ἃ foot-note, Bryennios, 
who writes in Greek, says ‘‘tdwp δὲ ζῶν λέγει τὸ 
ἄρτι ἀπὸ τοῦ φρέατος ἠντλημένον, τὸ ὑπόγυιον, τὸ 
πρόσφατον καὶ νεαρόν. Of. In. iv. 10, 11 ; vii, 38,”] 
᾿Εὰν δὲ μὴ ἔχῃς ὕδωρ ζῶν εἰς ἄλλο ὕδωρ βάπτισον᾽ 
[foot-note by Bryennios, ‘i. e., μὴ πρόσφατον 


καὶ veapdv, ψυχρὸν δέ" εἰ δ᾽ οὐ δύνασαι év 


ψυχρῷ, ἐν Gepud, ᾿Εὰν δὲ ἀμφότερα μὴ ἔχης, 
ἔκχεον [510] εἰς τὴν κεφαλὴν τρὶς ὕδωρ εἰς ὄνομα 
[Here 
another foot-note of Bryennios to the effect 
that if they had neither cold water nor warm 
sufficient for baptism, and necessity was upon 


Πατρὸς καὶ Yiov καὶ ayiov Πνεύματος. 


them, they could pour, reference being made, 


says Bryennios, to clinic baptism. (Tertullian’s 
“in periculo mortis.” Of, Eusebius h, 6, 6, 43, 


| 6 βαπτίζων καὶ ὁ βαπτιζόμενος καὶ εἴ τινες ἄλλοι 


δύνανται. Ἀελεύσεις δὲ νηστεῦσαι τὸν βαπτιζόμε- 


‘‘Concerning baptism, thus baptize ye. Having 


' previously imparted all these doctrines, baptize ye 


of baptism in the exact form that is sup- ὁ 


posed to have been employed in the bap- 
tism of our Lord. 


in the text that clinic baptism is referred to. 


into the name ofthe Father and the Son and the 
Holy Ghost in living water. [(Foot-note: But living 
water designates that which has just been drawn 
from the well, which is recent, fresh and new. See 
Johniv, 10,11; vii, 88,7] But if you have no living 
water, baptize in other water [Foot-note: ¢,¢., not 


| 
| 


fresh and new, yet cold]; and if you cannot in cold | 
water,thenin warm. Butif you have neither, then | 


pour water three times on the head, in the name of 
the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.” _ 

Of course Bryennios’s foot-notes must be taken 
for what they are worth. We see no evidence 
It 
appears to be lack of water that is referred to, 


not sickness of the candidate, as_in the famous: 


passage in Cyprian’s Letter ‘‘ Ad Magnum.” 
‘Living water” of course includes all moving 
water in streams and seas, as well as the water 
just drawn from a well which, the Samaritan 


} woman called living water. 


— 


eee OF i TWELVE APOSTLES.” 

AE πυρὶ ἡ πότε ἃ, 340) | in " enumerating the 
‘|p. writings of the New Testament (Εἰ. H. ii. 25) dis- 
tinguishes broadly between those which in his time were 
acknowledged and those which were disputed. As a sub- 
class of the latter division he specifies some which in his 
own judgment are certainly spurious (ἐν τοῖς νόθοις). He 
thus characterises the Acts of Paul, the Shepherd, the 
Apocalypse of Peter, the Epistle which purports to be by 
Barnabas, and ‘“‘the so-called Teachings (didayai) of the 
Apostles.’ St. Athanasios, in his 389th Festal Letter 
(A.D. 867), the genuineness of which has been doubted but 
is usually allowed, gives the Canon of both Testaments, and 
adds a list of other books, not canonical, nor yet apocry- 
phal, but authorised (τετυπωμένα) by the Fathers for the 
instruction of catechumens. These are the Wisdom of 
Solomon, the Wisdom of Sirach (Kcclesiasticus), Esther, 
Judith, Tobit, the Teaching (διδωχή) called of the Apostles, 
and the Shepherd. An ancient but undoubtedly spurious 
Synopsis of Holy Scripture which is printed with the works 
of St. Athanasios mentions the following as disputed books 
_ of the New Testament, selections from which were trans- 
lated and read, as approved by the ancient Fathers, and as 
containing some truths, and having some tincture of inspira- 
tion, viz., the Travels (περίοδοι) of Peter, the Travels of 
John, the Travels of Thomas, the Gospel of Thomas, the 
Teaching (διδωχή) of Apostles, the Clementines. Similarly,* 
at the end of a Paris MS. of the Questions of Anastasios 


* For the three following references (which however we have verified) 
we are indebted to Bryennios, 


“THACHING OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES.” 447 


of Antioch (d. 599), we find classed among apocryphal 
books the Travels (περίοδοι) and Teachings (ddayat) 
of the Apostles. The Stichometria of Nicephoros of 
Constantinople. (d. 820) enumerates. among the Apo- 
crypha of the New Testament, between the Gospel of 
Thomas and the Epistles of Clement, the Teaching (διδαχή) 
of Apostles, and tells us the work consisted of 200 stichoz 
or lines. Perhaps the latest witness to the survival of a 
book with similar title (unless indeed he is merely copying 
Eusebios) is Nicephoros Callistos (14th century); he places 
among spurious writings the Epistles purporting to be by 
Barnabas and ‘‘ the so-called Teachings (dvdayai) of the 
A postles.”’ | 

These testimonies are here recounted in order to exhibit 
the external evidence hitherto available to prove the exist- 
ence of a book (or books) long forgotten ; and to indicate 
also the position assigned to it (or them) by early writers. 
For we may fairly ask whether these various notices neces- 
sarily point to one and the same work. The title, as given 
by Eusebios, by Anastasios, and by the later Nicephoros is 
in the plural form, while St. Athanasios, the Synopsis, and 
the earlier Nicephoros use the singular. But the difference 
here (as Bryennios remarks) is not so great as we find in 
the usage of Epiphanios, who cites the Apostolic Constitu- 
tions (dsatayai) sometimes as διάταξις, sometimes as 
διατάξεις. On other grounds we may perhaps be led to 
apportion the testimonies above cited between two distinct 
works. 


ἽΣ 


In 1888 Cardinal Mai printed, in the tenth and last 
volume of his Scriptorum Veterum Nova Collectio, some 
works of the Nestorian bishop HEbediesu, who became 
Metropolitan of Nisibis A.D. 1286. Ebediesu’s collection of 
Synodical Canons opens with a portion of a Syriac docu- 
ment, professing to give Canons instituted by the Apostles 
themselves. Along with this, Mai prints a Latin version, 
corrected from one made by Joseph Aloysius Asseman 


448 “THACHING OF THE 


(1710—1782), but not published by him. The Syriac 
original was re-edited in a complete form by Lagarde in 
1856 * from a MS. which describes it as the Teaching of 
Addaeus the Apostle (a title which properly belongs to 
another piece). At length by Cureton in 1864 the work 
was editedt with its proper title Teaching of the Apostlest 
from a British Museum MS. (containing documents con- 
nected with Edessa) collated with another MS. in the 
same store of Syriac literature, and with Lagarde’s edition. 
Cureton’s English version, revised by Pratten, will be found ἡ 
in the Ante-Nicene Christian Library, vol. XX.§ 

The structure of this piece is threefold. First comes a 
quasi-historical account of the descent of the Paraclete on 
the eleven Apostles, of whom Simon Cephas is alone men- 
tioned by name. ‘Then follow twenty-seven Ordinances 
appointed by the Apostles ‘‘in accordance with the Gospel 
of their preaching, and with the true and faithful doctrine 
of their teaching ;”’ this being the only portion of the work 
which professes to be of direct apostolic authority. From 
this section many later writers have drawn (notably the 
compiler of the eighty-five Hcclesiastical Canons, frequently 
appended to bk. vill. of the Apostolic Constitutions) ; as a 
delineation of an early stage and a local form of the 
Christian organisation, this section of the document is ex- 
ceedingly precious. Lastly comes an account of the pursuit 
of their mission by the Apostles, and of the arrangements 
made to continue their work. Here a curious list of apostolic 


* In the Reliquiae Juris Ecclesiastict Antiquissimae (Vienna). It is not 
to be confounded with a previous (anonymous) publication by Lagarde, 
the Didascalia Apostolorum Syriace, Lipsiae, 1854; this latter is an epitome 
(Lagarde thinks it the original) of the Apostolic Constitutions, books 
I.—VI., and similar in character to the Arabic Didascalia, and to the 
Ethiopic Didiskalia (edited and translated by T. P. Platt, 1834). 

+ It is unfortunately in a posthumous publication, for which the in- 
tended preface was never written. Bryennios, who otherwise seems to 
know everything, appears to be unacquainted with Cureton’s researches. 

1 Cureton translates Malphonutho by Doctrine; with Pratten we prefer 
Teaching. It represents 7 διδαχή in Apoc. 11. 14, 15, 24. 

§ Pratten’s careless note, p. 36, should be corrected by Cureton, 
pp. 166-7. 


TWELVE APOSTLES.” 449 


names may be gathered, viz., James, Mark the Evangelist, 
Judas Thomas, Simon Cephas (who is said to have evange- 
lised Britain), John the Evangelist, Andrew, Luke the 
Apostle, Addaeus (?.e., Thaddaeus) the Apostle, ‘‘ one of the 
seventy-two Apostles.” Paul is twice mentioned, but 
without the title of Apostle; others are named as disciples 
of Apostles, the first among these being Timothy, Erastus, 
and Menaus. 
Is this the document to which the early notices allude? 

Its designation and its antiquity are so far in its favour. 
_ The title corresponds with the attestation of St. Athanasios 
(though by Ebediesu, and in a codex mentioned by Cure- 
ton, it is quoted as Canons of the Apostles.) A reference to 
subdeacons (Ord. 5) brings the period of the existing recen 
sion to the latter part of the third century* ; but there are 
indications of much earlier date. The name of Bishop 
does not occur; but the office is described, under the desig- 
nation of Guide. The Canon of Scripture is thus given 
(Ord. 10): ‘The Apostles appointed that besides the 
Old Testament and the Prophets and the Gospel and the 
Acts of their own triumphs, nothing should be read on the 
pulpit in the church.” Here Old Testament means ex- 
clusively the Law; just as New Testament, in the sequel to 
the Ordinances, means exclusively the Gospel. In that 
sequel, ‘‘ the Epistles of an Apostle” (specifying the writ- 
ings of James, Simon, John, Mark, Andrew, Luke, and 
Judas Thomas, but not mentioning Paul) are directed, on 
the authority of the Guides, to be ‘‘ received and read in the 
churches,” even as the ‘‘Acts, which Luke wrote, are 
read.” | 

If now we take this book and compare it with the testi- 
mony of Eusebios, we can see that, whatever be its value 
in other respects, there is a clear principle which would 
lead him to class it with those writings which he desig- 
nates as spurious. That is a term which properly covers 


* In the East, St. Athanasios is the first to mention ὑποδιάκονοι ; but 
Eusebios chronicles their existence at Rome about A.D. 250, on the autho- 
rity of a letter of Pope Cornelius (Εἰ. H. vi. 48). 

. 29 


450 “THACHING OF THE 


books professing an authorship which does not belong to 
them. Now the Syriac Teaching claims to give a series 
of Ordinances on direct apostolic authority ; and this is a 
claim which Eusebios would assuredly reject, on perusing 
the treatise. And that he had perused it is a thing in 
itself highly probable, since he copied and translated from 
Syriac documents in the archives of Edessa both the 
account of the alleged correspondence between Abgar and 
Jesus, and the above-mentioned Teaching of Addaeus 
(High a. 213): 

If, again, we consider the witness of the pseudo-Athana- 
sian Synopsis and of Anastasios, we shall be very much in- 
clined to say: Here is the writing of which they speak. 
They agree in placing the Teaching or Teachings of the 
Apostles among works of a certain class. Looking to the 
contents of this Syriac piece, it seems no way out of place 
among writings professing to give an account of the apos- 
tolic peregrinations. 

But if, on the other hand, we consult St. Athanasios 
himself, we find him including the Teaching called of the 
Apostles among authorised materials for the instruction of 
catechumens ; and this description corresponds neither with 
the original purpose nor with the conceivable uses of the 
Syriac Teaching. St. Athanasios is evidently not writing at 
random, ‘The other books placed by him in the same class 
with the Teaching might well be employed in catechetical 
instruction on the conduct of life. We should certainly 
expect the Teaching itself to bear the same character. But 
the Ordinances of the Syriac piece are all ad clerum; they 
deal with ministerial duties and ministerial disqualifica- 
tions ; even the pseudo-history which accompanies them 
has the distinct design of exhibiting a charter of apostolic 
succession for clerical use. Again, it is difficult to suppose 
that St. Athanasios would be willing to commend for the 
instruction of neophytes a treatise dealing with Scripture 
as we have seen that the Syriac document deals; ignoring 


the writings of Paul, and admitting apocryphal Epistles to 
a level with the Acts. 


IWELVE APOSTLES.” 451 


We thus reach the position that while the Syriac Teach- 
ing may very probably,,be the work alluded to by Eusebios, 
by the Synopsis, and fby Anastasios, it cannot reasonably 
be identified with the work to which St. Athanasios refers. 


LE: 


In 1875 Philotheos Bryennios published his edition of 
the Two Epistles of St. Clement of Rome, from a Greek 
MS8., No. 456 in the Library of the Convent of the Holy 
Sepulchre at Constantinople, belonging to the Patriarchate 
of Jerusalem, and hence called by him the Jerusalem Manu- 
script. Itisasmall octavo of 120 leaves (size, 19 by 15 
centimetres), written throughout in a contracted hand by a 
notary named Leon, and completed (with the exception of 
the last article) on Tuesday, 11th June, 1056. Included in it 
are eight distinct articles, or groups of articles; (1) St.John 
Chrysostom’s Synopsis of the Old Testament ; imperfect, yet 
supplying the hitherto missing conclusion of the Prophets; 
(2) the Epistle of Barnabas, in full; (8) St. Clement’s 
Epistle to the Corinthians (the only perfect copy) followed 
by the short homily which is called the Second Epistle ; (4) 
the Hebrew and Greek titles of Old Testament books; (5) 
the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles; (6) the Epistle 
(spurious) of Mary of Cassobola to St. Ignatios; (7) twelve 
Epistles (spurious)}of St. Ignatios; (8) an explanation of 
the genealogies of Joseph in Matthew and Luke. 

The appearance of Bryennios’ admirable edition of 
Clement at once excited a high degree of interest among 
European scholars. It was the sudden shining of a new 


and bright star in the Hast; and the gratitude of the 


learned world for the labours of the erudite Metropolitan 
of Serrae took the sincerest and most complimentary form, 
when the hope was expressed that he would make public 
the further contents of the Jerusalem Manuscript. This, 
having meantime been raised to the Metropolitan see of 
Nicomedia (where he sits on the throne of that other 
Eusebios, greater in ambition and in brilliancy, deeper also 
29—2 


452 “THACHING OF THE 


in heretical dye, than him of Caesarea), he has done. The 
entire contents of the volume (excepting only article 6) 
have now been edited. Its Ignatian readings were included 
in Funk’s Opera Patrum Apostolicorum, vol 11., 1881; all 


other various readings and additional pieces are furnished | 


in the ample prolegomena and appendices accompanying 
the editio princeps of the Διδαχὴ τῶν 18’ ἀποστόλων, 1883. 

If the edition of Clement awakened attention and curi- 
osity, the appearance of the Didaché has produced nothing 
short of a sensation.* Bryennios, who does not seem to 
have been alive to its character in 1875, is now fully im- 
pressed, after seven years’ close editorial study, with the 
extraordinary value of this treatise in its bearing upon 
Christian literature and history, on such points, for example, 
as the simplicity of worship, the position of the ministry 
and of the Scriptures. With regard to the critical study of 
the various works which may be ranked in the general class 
of quasi-Apostolic Constitutions, he surmises that it will 
roll the stream of Lethe over most of what has hitherto 
been written on this subject. His editing of the work has 
been executed with remarkable care,t and with a singu- 
larly rich apparatus both of patristic and of modern learn- 
ing. The judgments which may be formed by scholars on 
a critical examination of his document, Bryennios does not 
seek to anticipate ; but with a full and able hand he pours 
into his prolegomena and notes, written in smooth and ex- 
cellent Greek,t the main materials which must be employed 
in any such examination. 


* Two reprints of the Greek have been issued in the United States, one 
with a translation and preface by Hitchcock and Brown, the other with a 
version by Fitzgerald.. Our home scholars have shown no such enterprise. 
There is also a translation by Starbuck in the Andover Review ; and another 
in the American Sunday School Times, 23rd April. This last is deservedly 
described as “more exact than any other now before the public.” We 
should have been glad to have seen it before issuing our own version. 

+ Except the one lapsus calami, p. 51, n.1 (χειροτονήσατε for προχειρίσασθε). 
already observed by Canon Wordsworth (Guardian, 19th March), we have 
noted no sign of nodding. The freedom from misprints is such as to make 
one wish that the Constantinopolitan firm of Boutyra would open a London 
branch. 

t Not “modern Greek,’’ as Archdeacon Farrar loosely says (Contemporary 
and Expositor for May). 


TWELVE APOSTLES.” 453 


Before we proceed to a detailed account of the work, let 
us ask how far it fulfils the conditions of those patristic 
notices of the Teaching by which we have already tested the 
claim of the Syriac document. To begin with, the title of 
the Greek document does not exactly correspond with that 
given in any one of these notices. Teaching of the Twelve 
Apostles, is the scribe’s heading; Teaching of [the] Lord 
through the Twelve Apostles to the nations* is the title self- 
assumed by the document which he copies. Thus “ the 
‘Twelve’ must be regarded as an integral part of the title ; 
where this precision is not found, the actual name of the 
work is not given. We are so habituated to the limitation 
of the word Apostles to those appointed by Jesus Christ in 
person, that the omission of the defining words “the 
Twelve’? may seem to us a matter of no moment. But a 
glance at the Teaching reveals the force of the restricting 
numeral; ‘‘apostles’’ are freely mentioned in it, but they 
are the ordinary mission-agents of the Gospel; the Teach- 
ang claims for itself an authority anterior, even if not 
superior, to theirs. 

Here let us say, once for all, that in weighing this and 
other points we are placed at a disadvantage by being at the 
mercy of asingle copyist. Leon, though his curst contrac- 
tionst entitle him to his self-inflicted appellation of ‘‘ sinner,”’ 
is a very workmanlike scribe; his mere wncuriae are ex- 
tremely few; probably only six in his whole transcript of 
the Teaching ; and where, in other pieces, he differs from 
rival copyists, he is far more often right than wrong, 
judging by the superior sense of his version. Indeed, if we 
have a complaint against him, it is that his text is even too 
good. We should have expected, nay, welcomed, more 
inequalities, more knotty places, more of the harsh signs of 
crabbed age in his document, than we actually find. Itisa 
relief to encounter a few verbal difficulties, where, as a rule, 
all is such plain perspicuous Greek. On the other hand, as 


* We are reminded of the direction to the eleven, Matthew xxviii. 19, 20, 
to go and make πάντα τὰ ἔθνη disciples by baptism διδάσκοντες k.7.A. 

+See page of specimens of his handwriting in fac-simile at the end 
of Bryennios’ edition of Clement. 


454 «“ THACHING OF THE 


this is the only text we have, and one that has evidently 
been prepared with much care, we are bound, even in sus- 
picious cases, to adhere to it wherever it is capable of 
yielding a meaning, for, in truth, we have little more than 
mother wit to check it by.* 

Let us. proceed to try our witnesses. Might Eusebios 
have had this work in view when he classed the Teachings 
of the Apostles among spurious books? It is most unlikely. 
On the part of the work before us there is not the shadow of 
a claim to the dignity of apostolic authorship. The claim it 
makes is to convey the subject matter of the Apostles’ 
teaching, or rather of their presentation of the Lord’s teach- 
ing, but not as under their hands or from their mouths. A 
book of this kind may err; but unless its error involve the 
deliberate assertion of a new Gospel, ““ spurious’ is not the 
head under which a careful writer like Eusebios would 
naturally classify it. And with the testimony of Eusebios 
goes that of Nicephoros Callistos. 

Nor, again, does the work class well with those which 
compose the shady list presented in the pseudo-Athanasian 
Synopsis. These are all romances, pseudo-history with a 
pious design, as far removed as possible in structure and in 
character from the strain and substance of the Teaching. 
The same may be said of the collocation indicated by 
Anastasios. 

When we come to Nicephoros of Constantinople, we get 
an indication of the size of the work, of which Bryennios is 
disposed to make some use. The Teaching known to Nice- 
phoros was a treatise of 200 lines. Now the Teaching in 

* Bryennios has given us in foot-notes the exact state of the MS. 
wherever he alters the text. We wish he had reversed the process, reserv- 
ing all emendations for the foot of the page. His changes, though very 
sparing, are not always necessary. Thus, following the lead of the Apos- 
tolic Constitutions, he alters to “ fleshly and worldly lusts” because ‘ fleshly 
and bodily’ is tautological. Not wholly so, perhaps; for 1 John, ii. 16 
may help us to an available distinction. Nor is the emendation a happy 
one, for κοσμικός in the Teaching is not used in a moral sense. 

+ Harnack does not question that Eusebios refers tothe Greek document ; 


nevertheless, he says of it that it is “ein Apokryphum, aber ein Falsum 
darf man sie nicht nennen.’’—Theol. Lt. Zg. 9th Feb., 1884, p. 52. 


TWHLVE APOSTLES.” 455 


the Jerusalem Manuscript occupies about 203 lines. But 
this measurement, so far from favouring the identity of the 
two, is an argument against it. Nicephoros fixes the com- 
bined length of the two Epistles of Clement at 2,600 lines ; 
they occupy in the Jerusalem Manuscript 1,120 lines.* 
What then, on this calculation, should be the length, in the 
Jerusalem Manuscript, of Nicephoros’ 200-line tractate ? 
Not 208, but only some 86 lines. This would imply a very 
much shorter document than either the Greek or the 
Syriac Teaching. To suit the requirements of our Greek 
document the estimate in Nicephoros’ stichometry would 
have to be increased to 455 lines, instead of 200. 

On the other hand, the place which St. Athanasios assigns 
to the Teaching, while quite unsuitable, as we have seen, 
to the Syriac work, exactly fits the Greek document. It is 
precisely a book for those just coming to Christianity and 
desiring elementary catechetical instruction.t Moreover 
the relation which it bears to some of its companions in Bt. 
Athanasios’s list, e.g., Ecclesiasticus and the Shepherd, 1s one 
of real kinship, both as regards the distinctive purpose of 
its opening sections, and the ethical tone of the whole. 
Add to this that we may almost certainly say that St. 
Athanasios borrows from the Teaching. For he uses (on 
Matt. vil. 15) the remarkable word χριστέμπορος,} or Christ- 
monger, and in a connection which closely recalls the 
prudent directions of the Teaching about knowing false 
prophets by their works and ways. 

Bryennios, however, points to an earlier and more weighty 
citation of the Teaching thanthis. He affirms that Clement 
of Alexandria (d. 220) ‘‘ reckons this book among the Holy 
Scriptures, and plainly thus exhalts its authority.” The 
reference is to Strom. i. 20, where Clement is speaking of 


* See Bryennios’ Clement, p. 142, n. 4. 

+ Cyril of Jerusalem (d. 386) advises catechumens not to read apocryphal 
writings (Catech. iv.), a proof that they were in vogue. 

7 Subsequently to St. Athanasios it is found in pseudo-Ignatius (ad 
Magnes, c. 9; ad Trall, ο. 6). It is desirable to note that it occurs in the 
later part of the Teaching (c. xii.); for Hilgenfeld thinks that only the 
earlier part could have been described by St. Athanasios as meant for 
catechumens (Zeitschr. f. w. Th. 1884, iii. 370). 


456 “THACHING OF THE 


the philosophic Christian who imports into his system ideas 
appropriated from the false teachings of heathen sages. 
‘‘This man,” he says, “‘is called thief by the Scripture, at 
least it says (φησὶ γοῦν") ‘Son, become not a liar, for lying 
leads the way towards theft.’” Here is no avowed citation 
of the Teaching, but a memoriter quotation of a saying which, 
occurring in the Teaching, occurs also in another work, the 
fipitome of Rules, of which more anon. Clement does not 
give the saying in the exact words of either work, but he 
comes slightly nearer to the Hpitome form than to that of 
the Teaching. That he deliberately assigns to either one or 
other the authority of Holy Scripture is an unwarrantable 
inference from his language. Rather should we conclude 
that the saying had come to his mind with a general im- 
pression that he had read it somewhere in Scripture; it 
seems, in fact, to be based on Prov. xxx. 6—9, a passage 
the strain of which suits Clement’s curious application 
of the words he quotes (viz., that dabblers in false, 1.6., 
heathen philosophy, are plagiarists to boot) far better than 
does the context either of Hpitome or Teaching.+ 

All then that we can say about the correspondence of the 
Greek Teaching with the patristic notices of a work bearing 
a similar but defective title, is simply this. A prima facie 
probability allows us to believe that through the discovery 
of Bryennios we have in our hands the work characterised 
by St. Athanasios. But there is absolutely no proof of the 
fact. What St. Athanasios knew as the Teaching of the 
Apostles may have been something much shorter than the 
newly-discovered Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, some- 
thing answering to the measurement of Nicephoros.t 

* By φησί Clement of Alexandria sometimes means “it is said’; but we 
may allow the meaning here to be as above. 

t+ Eusebios gives a list (E.H. vi. 13) of disputed Scriptures quoted by 
Clement in the Stromateis. He does not mention the Teaching ; yet he can 
hardly have overlooked the citation discussed above, for he expressly refers 
to what immediately follows it. This is a fact of weight. It shows at any 
rate that Eusebios did not recognise, in the Teaching which he knew, the 
source of Clement’s quotation. 


t In pseudo-Cyprian De Aleatoribus there is a quotation from Doctrinae 
Apostolorum, which corresponds to nothing either in the Syriac or the Greek 


TWELVE APOSTLES.” 457 


Bryennios has not even attempted to demonstrate that 
the treatise he has discovered is a treatise alluded to by any 
ancient writer. He has simply taken this for granted. He 
has taken for granted that all allusions to a Διδαχή or 
Διδαχαί are allusions to the newly-found book; though (1) 
the book is not cited with its proper title in any ancient 
author; (2) there is no description of its contents available 
for its identification; (8) nor any indisputable quotation 
from it. 


ELE 


Slight as is the external attestation to the Teaching of the 
Twelve Apostles, its intrinsic value and interest are superla- 
tively great. To a certain extent it at once authenticates 
itself, and did the whole treatise bear the stamp of certain 
parts, we should pronounce it one of the oldest of Christian 
writings. But, though it has been carefully worked over by 
a compiler of strong individuality, it reveals traces of its 
heterogeneous origin. Bryennios directs us to find its date 
between the years 120 and 160 A.D. We think the former 
year too late for some of its contents, the latter too early, 
if not for the general form of the whole, at any rate for 
some points in the existing recension. 

The structure of the work is simple enough; it falls into 
four main sections, of which the first three deal respectively 
with Character, Churchmanship, and the Hierarchy, while 
the fourth isan Appendix, presenting an important accession 
to the Hierarchy section, and adding the Kyriophany. On 
a first perusal, the little work seemed at once familiar and 
unfamiliar. It was like viewing the picture, taken in his 
early prime, of a friend whom we had only known in very 
advanced life. The Teaching is manifestly the original of 
bk. vii., chaps. 1—82, of the Apostolic Constitutions, chapters 
which present the identical matter and the identical ar- 
rangement, point for point, of the Teaching, but with ex- 
Teaching. Hilgenfeld thinks it sufficiently like a passage in the Greek 


Teaching, chap. xv., to suggest the hypothesis of another recension of this 
work. 


458 “THACHING OF THE 


cisions, variations, and additions of the fourth century. 
These variations we shall not pursue, as our concern 15 
rather with the antecedents and contemporaries than with 
the spurious reproduction of the work.* 

For the first two sections a plain hint (almost a digest in 
miniature) is supplied in Peter’s third Pentecostal speech 
(Acts 11. 40—42) : ‘‘ Be ye saved from this crooked + genera- 
tion. Then they that received his word were baptized... . 
And they were steadfastly adhering τῇ διδαχῇ τῶν ἀποστόλων 
καὶ τῇ κοινωνίᾳ, TH κλάσει τοῦ ἄρτου Kal ταῖς προσευχαῖς." 
Assuredly here is the germ of the work ; here is the outline 
which has been filled up and added to. 


CHARACTER. 


In the working out of the scheme, the Character-section 
(Two Ways), which fills chapters i—yv., bulks more largely 
than any of the others,.in accordance with the author’s 
strong ethical motive. It is also more composite, and 
exhibits more clearly the rings of its growth. 

The Two Ways, or norm of conduct, is evidently a 
piece of very early and not improbably of pre-Christian 
origin. The antithesis, of which it is an expansion, is found 
verbally in Jerem. xxi. 8; and, with a more distinctly 
moral application, in Deut. xxx. 15—20. Innumerable are 
the references to this antithesis, both in canonical and 
extra-canonical writings. But the first systematic working 
out of the moral contrast is the ‘‘ Testament of Aser, con- 
cerning Two Faces of Badness and Virtue,” in the Testa- 
ments of the Twelve Patriarchs, apparently a pre-Christian 
work which has been retouched from an early Christian 
standpoint.t Here, however, the ὁδοὶ δύο ‘ which God 


* Bryennios has shown that not only is book vii., 1—82, a reproduction 
of the Teaching, but the other books, both earlier and later, betray an 
acquaintance with its language. The New York Independent of 1st May 
mentions an article by Prof. J. C. Long in the National Baptist which 
reverses the position, making the Teaching “as late as or later than” 
the Apostolic Constitutions. 

+ Barnabas uses the same term (crookedness) of the Way of Death. 

t We hold in the main with Grabe, though considering the work, as we 
have it, not so much interpolated as rewritten, perhaps on an Aramaic 


\ 


TWELVE APOSTLES.” 459 


has given to the sons of men ”’ are subjective tendencies ; 
the good man follows the direction of righteous principle, 
rejecting the evil mind within him*; the bad man tries to 
act on two sets of principles, and thus becomes “ two- 
faced.”” There are traces of this also in the Teaching, 
which is particularly rich in such terms as two-minded, two- 
tongued, double-heartedness, and the like.+ 

Now there seem to have been other pieces, which are lost, 
exhibiting the Two Ways as outward lines of conduct, 
good and bad, and we can trace in the Teaching the blend- 
ing of two such pieces. One of these is embedded in a 
work first printed by J. W. Bickell, in 1843,t and subse- 
quently edited by Lagarde, 1556, and by Hilgenfeld, 1866, 
from whom Bryennios reprints it in his prolegomena for 
purposes of comparison. ‘The other is the Appendix to the 
Epistle of Barnabas. 

Of the former piece there exists but one complete MS. (at 
Vienna) with the title Constitutions through Clement and 
Canons Hcclesvastical of the Holy Apostles. Apparently it 
is, as Hilgenfeld conjectures, the treatise referred to by 
Rufinus (after Jerome) under the double title Dwae Viae or 
Judicium Petri, titles which answer respectively to two 
distinct parts of the work.|| Under the title Epitome of Rules © 
basis. For the opposite view (viz., that it was originally the work of a 
Jewish Christian), and for the literature of the subject, see Sinker’s admir- 
able edition, 1869, with Appendix, 1879. See also Sinker’s translation, in 
Ante-Nicene Christian Library, vol. xxii., 1871. The Muggletonians, on 
their Prophet’s authority, accept the Testaments as the actual writing of the 
Patriarchs, and as one of the most valuable books in the Canon of Scripture. 

* This is the essence of the Muggletonian ethical doctrine of salvation ; 
Faith being the stable principle, as opposed to Reason, the shifting 
principle. 

+ So too the Epitome, and, in a less degree,’ the Barnabas-appendix. 

1 Geschichte des Kirchenrechts, vol. 1., pp. 107—132. 

§ There is an Arabic and an Ethiopic translation, under the title Canons 
of the Apostolic Fathers. The Ethiopic text was published by Ludolf as 
early as 1691 (with a Latin version) in his Ad Hist. Aeth. Comment. The 
Arabic text, described by Grabe in 1711, has not been edited, so far as 
we know. 

|| Of these parts, the latter is similar in aim to the Hierarchy section of 


the Teaching, but it exhibits a much more matured hierarchy; bishop, 
presbyter, reader, deacon. 


460 “TEACHING OF THE 


of the Holy Apostles, an Ottobonian MS. presents us with 
the first part only (Duae Viae) ; corroborating the view of 
the Character section as an independent document, a manual 
of religious ethics, lost in its original form, yet still circu- 
lating sometimes separately, sometimes in conjunction with 
other matter.* 

Bryennios treats the Epitome as borrowed from the Teach- 
ing ; but here we cannot follow him. The resemblances are 
so close that it is clear there has been copying; and the 
Epitome is the later document. Yet we do not think the 
Epitomiser had the Teaching before him, for the following 
reasons: 1. There is nothing in the Teaching which ex- 
plains its own phrase ‘‘ through the Twelve Apostles.’”’ Now 
the Epitome sets out with an enumeration of twelve names 
(they are not called Apostles), ‘John and Matthew and 
Peter and Andrew and Philip and Simon and James and 
Nathanael and Thomas and Cephas and Bartholomew and 
Judas of James.’’+ They are made interlocutors in a sort of 
dramatic dialogue, in which they give utterance to the 
several points of the instruction. We think the compiler of 
the Teaching must have seen the Two Ways presented 
in this form.t 2. There are traces of this dialogue arrange- 
ment still extant in the Teaching ; witness the six-times 
repeated ‘“‘ My child.” The interlocutors begin thus in the 
Vienna MS.; in the Teaching this phrase looks like an un- 
removed excrescence on the assimilated matter.§ 38. If the 

* The Epitome, at the beginning, recites the establishment of the full 
hierarchy, so that it is not the lost original. 

+ Who were the Twelve Apostles? Donaldson (Jashar, 1854, and 
Christian Orthodoxy, 1857) has shown the difficulty of gathering an 
accurate list, even from the New Testament. We have sometimes thought 
the variations in early writers explicable on the hypothesis of a filling up 
of the apostolic college, so long as witnesses to the fact of the Resurrection 
survived ; compare the case of the election of Matthias. 

{ In the Epitome John leads off, at the request of the rest; in the Hier- 
archy-section, appended in the Vienna MS., Peter leads off, on a similar 


request. This, as Hilgenfeld well says, may explain the second title 
Judicium Petri. 


§ The Epitomiser has removed it, perhaps thinking it unsuitable from 
Apostle to Apostle; but originally it may have been the address of the 
apostolic speaker to the catechumen. 


TWELVE APOSTLES.” 464 


Epitomiser had the Teaching before him, it is difficult to see 
why he should have forborne to quote anything from the 
most important passages in its first chapter, and should 
have left the fifth chapter (Way of Death) wholly un- 
touched. 4. Even in Chaps. ii., 111., iv. of the Teaching, 
where the coincidences with the Epitome are close and 
verbal, the following special vices are enumerated, of which 
the Epitome is silent: stealing, magical practices, lust of 
another’s goods,* sodomy, forswearing, neglect of the re- 
ligious education of children, ill-usage of slaves, disobedi- 
ence to masters, and going to prayer with an evil con- 
science. How can we explain such omissions as the action 
of a copyist? 5. The Teaching does not appear to be the 
original norm, inasmuch as (differing from the Hpitome and 
Barnabas-appendix) it excludes all reference to diabolical 
influence, a very remarkable omission, showing strong indi- 
viduality, and corresponding with the total absence of angels 
from the Kyriophany. Now it must be owned that the 
presence of Satan is very characteristic of early Christian 
and late Jewish documents ; and we see here an indication 
that the Epitomiser had access to an older form of the 
T'wo Ways than that given in the Teaching. 

We come now to the Barnabas-appendix. From Barna- 
bas proper, there is one manifest plagiarism in the Epitome ; 
the opening salutation of the Hpitome is taken verbatim 
from the opening words of the Epistle. The Epistle then 
is older than the Epitome, and a fortiori older than the 
Teaching form of the Two Ways. But we must distin- 
cuish carefully between the Barnabas-Hpistle itself and the 
Barnabas-appendix on the Two Ways. Of this latter 
the old Latin version of Barnabast knows nothing; but has 
Explicit Epistola Barnabae at the close of Chap. xvii., 
which it winds up with a doxology not found in the 
existing Greek. In our present Greek copies it occurs as 


* Certainly there are indirect allusions to these three; which makes the 
direct exclusion of them inexplicable. Barnabas-appendix also omits 
all the above vices except the third and fourth. ‘The Ethiopic text 
contains the first four. 

+ In the Codex Corbeiensis, now at St. Petersburg, 


462 “ THAGHING) Of ia 


Chaps. xviii.—xx. of Barnabas, introduced by the sionificant 


words ‘‘Let us pass to another gnosis and teaching 
(dvday7).” | 

In the Barnabas-appendix there is evidence cf a special 
adaptation of the phraseology of a common document to 
the mystical point of view of the Barnabas gnosis. The 
Two Ways are characteristically presented not as ways 
of good and evil (as in Aser’s Testament), nor of life and 
death (as in the Hpitome and Teaching), but of lght and 
darkness ;* and we read of ‘‘ the gnosis given to us”’ for 
walking in the way of light. The practical precepts are 
here culled in. very little consecutive order, seemingly as 
memory suggested them; they consist almost entirely of 
a cento of prohibitions. One is repeated (‘‘ Thou shalt not 
take evil counsel against thy neighbour’’). The Barnabas- 
appendix is certainly the rudest of the three documents, but 
with the rudeness of the unskilled compiler. In fact it 


is a jumble, suggesting no clue to its own arrangement:. 


Tt might almost be explained on the hypothesis of memo- 
riter borrowing from the Teaching. 

The Shepherd, anciently ascribed to one Hermas, is 
reckoned by Bryennios, along with Barnabas, among the 
sources of the Teaching ; and here we agree with him. The 
Shepherd has very distinct opinions on the subject of alms- 
giving and of paying prophets. It says (Com. 2): 

To all who are in want, give simply, not doubting to whom thou 
mightst give, or to whom thou mightst not give; give to all, for unto all 
God wills that gifts be made of his own free-gifts. They therefore who 


take, shall render account to God wherefore they took and for what; for 
they that being afflicted take shall not be judged; but they that in 


hypocrisy take shall stand trial. He, then,that giveth is guiltless; for as: 


he took from the Lord to fulfil the ministry, he fulfilled it simply, no way 
discriminating to whom he might give or might not give. This ministry, 
then, simply fulfilled, was made glorious with God. He therefore, thus 
simply ministering, shall live unto God. 


This is indiscriminate almsgiving ; but the Teaching, in a 


* Yet “death’s way” is incidentally mentioned, and “the way of the 
black one” is called “an eternal way of death with torment ;” expressions 
which show the half-digested manner in which the Barnabas-appendix deals 
with its material. 


a 


~* 


re 


TWELVE APOSTLES.” 463 


‘passage to which the Epitome has no parallel,is much more 


explicit in its cautions both to giver and taker. 


He [that taketh], having no need, shall stand trial, why he took and 
for what, and being put in distress, he shall be examined about the things 
which he practised, and shall not come forth thence until he give back the 
last farthing. 


Here is a distinctly human, whereas the Shepherd contem- 

plates only a divine judgment. ‘The giver, too, is warned in 
the remarkable saying, quoted as of Scriptural authority: 
“Τὸ hath been said: ‘ Let thine almsgiving sweat into thine 
hands until thou know to whom thou givest.’ ’’* 
_ So, again, the Shepherd (Com. 11) is strongly against any 
stated maintenance for the prophets; they are to subsist 
on charity. The Teaching traverses this position in its 
Hierarchy-section. Charity is to be only a temporary 
expedient, to meet the case of the destitute and the tra- 
veller; every Christian must work; and the working 
prophet, the teacher who settles in a given place, is to have 
his regular maintenance of first fruits. In both passages 
we give priority to the Shepherd ; the Didachographer, with 
his shrewd sense, is the corrector. 

Accordingly, we stratify thus the Character section of the 
Teaching. { First comes the Two Ways antithesis, in its 
simplest form, as in the Epitome; on the one hand, the 
two-fold positive precept, Love God and thy neighbour, 
this being the finger-post of the Way of Life; on the other 
hand, a negative rendering of the golden rule, Do not to 


- another what thou wouldst 2o¢ wish for thyself, this being 
the finger-post of the Way of Death. Secondly comes, 


from the Sermon on the Mount, and from the Shepherd as 
corrected, a commentary on the Way of Life. Thirdly, 
the parallel with the Hpitome is resumed, in the words 
“ΝΟΥ a second commandment of the teaching;” and it is 
remarkable that what the Hpitome gives as its expanded 


comment on the negative precept, is here presented as an 


* This has been rendered as if it were “ Let thine alms drop from thine 
hands, so long as thou knowest,” &c. In either case it is a caution against 
indiscriminate giving. 


464 “TEACHING OF THE 


alternative version of the Way of Life*. Fourthly, yet 
another passage of comment on the Way of Life is given, 
containing the rules about education and slaves, &c., 
unknown to the Epitome; at the close is a marked sign 
of late workmanship, ἐν" ἐκκλησίᾳ for ‘‘in church.’ . 
Lastly, comes an account of the Way of Death, the 
prototype of that in the Barnabas-appendix, unless we 
prefer to consider it derived by both Teaching and ἜΣ 
from a common document.t 


CHURCHMANSHIP. 


We pass from the Character section to the Churchman- 
ship section. We shall consider it in two divisions—(1) the. 
Kucharistic Prayers; (2) the other ordinances. 

1. The Prayers it may be well to set out infull. This 
is the thankoffering concerning the cup : 


We offer thee thanks, our Father, for the holy vine of David thy 
servant, whereof thou gavest us knowledge through Jesus thy servant; to 
thee the glory unto the ages. 


And this, concerning the bread (κλάσμα) : 


We offer thee thanks, our Father, for the life and knowledge whereof. 
thou gavest us knowledge through Jesus thy servant; to thee the glory unto 
the ages. 

Like as this broken piece had been scattered upon the hills, and being 
brought together became one, so let thy Church be brought together from 
the ends of the earth into thy kingdom ; for thine is the glory and the 
power through Jesus Christ unto the ages. 


Lastly, after the sufficing (ἐμπλησθῆναι) : 


We offer thee thanks, Holy Father, for thy holy name, where thou 
didst tabernacle in our hearts, and for the knowledge, and faith, and 


* The Epitome is clearly right, and gives the older setting ; this is 
properly an exposition of the Way of Death. 

+ Simply by a careful comparison of the data furnished in the Epitome, 
the Barnabas Appendix, and the Apost. Const., Krawutsky was able, in 
1882, to reconstruct the Two Ways document in a form which, so far as it 
goes, comes surprisingly close to that which it actually takes in the 
Teaching. See the Tiibingen Theol. Quartalschrift, 1882, pt. 3. Harnack is 
right to claim this as a triumph of critical sagacity ; we need not say that 
it bears out our view of the Teaching as a compilation. The second and 
fourth sections of the Two Ways, not being in the Epitome, are absent also 
from Krawutsky’s able reconstruction. 


TWHLVE APOSTLES.” 465 


immortality whereof thou gavest us knowledge through Jesus thy servant ; 
to thee the glory unto the ages. 

Thou, Sovereign almighty, createdst all things for thy name’s sake, 
food and drink thou gavest unto men for enjoyment that they might offer 
thee thanks, and unto us thou freely gavest spiritual food and drink, and 
life eternal through thy servant. Before all things we offer thee thanks 
that mighty art thou; [to thee] the glory unto the ages. 

‘Remember, Lord, thy Church, to deliver it from all evil and to perfect 
it in thy love; and bring it together from the four winds, the sanctified 
unto thy kingdom, which thou preparedst for it, for thine is the power and 
the glory unto the ages. 

,Come grace, and pass this world away. 

‘ Hos anna to the God of David. 

If any is holy let him come; if any is not, let. him repent; maranatha. 
Amen. 


_ Hither we have here the most audacious of forgeries, or 
else a perfectly unique fragment of the earliest Christian 
antiquity. For fergery there is no discernible motive. 
These Prayers are certainly not invented in support of the - 
Kyriology of the remainder of the document; they stand _ 
apart in their naked Ebionism. Neither were they con- 
structed in favour of the eucharistic doctrine which appears 
in Chaps. xii. and xiv., for of this they breathe no 
whisper. The only points of possible suspicion about their 
language occur in the third and largest of them. 

The expression, there, respecting the gift of “spiritual 
food and drink and life eternal’? is found also in the 
Epitome. We may explain this as an interpolation in the 
Prayer ; or as a quotation on the part of the Epitome, and 
thus a confirmation of the age of the Prayers. In some 
respects it would be convenient to dismiss the-phrase as an 
interpolation, for the order of participation which it implies 
is not that indicated in the arrangement of the Prayers. 
But this arrangement is in other respects untenable; the 
Prayer in question, although given to be used after partici- 
pation, closes with an invitation and prohibition which pre- 
suppose that participation is not yet begun. Indeed we are 
disposed to think that the Didachographer has arranged 
these Prayers simply according to size, and that this 
explains the inversion of the cup and the bread in the order 
of celebration. If this inversion belonged to the structure 

30 


466 ‘“S THACGHING ΟΕ 


of the Prayers, we might be tempted to discuss the yuestion 
of its relation to the order of the Paschal rite, and to the 
Codex Bezae version of St. Luke’s account of the Last 
Supper.* But seeing that the compiler has demonstrably 
misplaced the third Prayer, there is nothing unreasonable 
in the conjecture that he has misplaced the others also. 
Besides this probable quotation from the Hpitome, there 
is, in the third Prayer, a possible allusion to St. John’s 
Gospel. Bryennios has noted that the invocation ‘‘ Holy 
Father” occurs in John xvii. 11. But ἃ stronger coinci- 
dence exists between ‘‘thy holy name, where thou didst 
tabernacle (κατεσκήνωσας) in our hearts,’ and ‘‘ the word 
... did tabernacle (ἐσκήνωσεν) in us” of Johni. 14; and 
if this be a quotation, it is remarkable as suggesting a 
distinctly Ebionite interpretation of the Gospel phrase.t 
For what use are these Prayers viewed by the compiler 
as designed? Are they liturgical, in the sense of being 
intended for recitation by a celebrant of the eucharistic 
rite? On the contrary, they are presented as devotions for 
the faithful (probably moulded on a pre-Christian norm, 
derived from words of blessing in use at Passover feasts), 
the liturgia proper being entrusted to ‘‘ the prophets” (cf. 
Chaps. x., xlll.—xv.), who are the “‘ high priests”’ to perform 
the ‘‘ sacrifice.’ Certainly there is nothing in them which 
suggests, even in germ, an act of consecration, or corres- 
ponds in any way to the contents of the simplest of the ex- 
tant liturgies. They exhibit strong Hebraistic peculiarities. 
As in the Lord’s Prayer (which is given with a doxology as 
the norm of Christian devotion), the object of worship is 
“our Father,’ ‘‘holy Father.” Jesus is four times 
mentioned, thrice as the ‘‘ servant’ (παῖς) of God, once 
as ‘‘Christ’’; in this last instance only, glory is ascribed 
to God through him. The description of ‘‘ the holy vine 
of David thy servant, whereof thou gavest us knowledge 


* The resort to Codex Bezae would suggest Western influence ; Harnack 
will not admit the possibility of a Western origin of the Teaching. 

+ The rendering “in us”’ (instead of the usual “among us”’) in John 
i. 14, is not adopted, so far as we know, by any English translator of the 
New Testament 


TWELVE APOSTLES.” 467 


through Jesus thy servant,” is totally opposed to any 
identification of the cup with “ἃ communion of the 
blood of Christ,” as in St. Paul.* The bread repre- 
sents, not the broken body of Christ, but the hope of 
unity for the scattered Church of God. No doubt, in 
St. Paul’s phraseology, the Church is ‘‘ the body of Christ,” 
but the Prayer contains no hint of the Lord’s body, 
even in this secondary sense. The third Prayer ad- 
dresses the Hos annat to the God of David, an expression 
which Bryennios treats as a scribe’s error, yet it seems 
characteristic. 

2. Rules about other ordinances (chaps. Vi.-vill., Xlv.) ex- 
hibit Jewish influence. The distinction of clean and unclean 
meats is not expressly mentioned, but in the caution about 
eating it is implied, and is directed to be observed as far as 
practicable, while the use of meats profaned by idol-sacrifice 
is strongly condemned. There is no absolute antagonism 
here to the permissions of St. Paul, but the point of view 
is much more rigid than his. The duty of giving first- 
fruits is insisted on, though there is no mention of tithe. 
On the other hand, the Jews are referred to as ‘‘ the 


* Does not the vine, like the bread, represent the Church? And is not 
“‘vine of David” the suggestion of a parallel between the kingdom that 
was, with David at its head, under God, and the kingdom to be, with 
Jesus at its head, under God? In Epiphanios (Haer. xlv. 4), we are told 
that “the Apostles say in the so-called Constitution (διάταξις) that ‘God’s 
planting and vineyard is the Catholic Church.’” This saying is nowhere 
found in the Apost. Const. 

+ The word is divided ὡς ἀννά, the same division being found in some 
MSS. of the Gospels. It seems to point to a false etymology. We have 
long thought that the explanations of Hosanna in early Christian writers 
were dependent on various misconstructions of the Hebrew. When, e.g., 
Clement of Alexandria (Paed. i. 5), quoted by Bryennios, gives φῶς καὶ δόξα 
καὶ αἶνος μεθ’ ἱκετηρίας as the force of dcavvd, it is difficult to avoid the 
suspicion that he has φῶς aives in his mind, as a pseudo-etymon. This is 
mad enough as a piece of etymology, but not madder than many similar 
tours de force; not nearly so mad as the Barnabas explication (c. ix.) of the 
eighteen (17) and three hundred (7) circumcised men of Abraham’s 
household as prefiguring Jesus and the cross. In the third Prayer of the 
Teaching the Hos anna immediately follows the aspiration “Come grace,” 
&c. Hence we have been led to guess that ὡς dvvé may in this case have 
been derived from 737 Wry “speed grace.” 


30—2 


468 “ THACHING FOL ΘΗ 


hypocrites,’ and their special fasting days (Monday and 
Thursday) and modes of prayer are to be shunned. 

Fast is, however, to be kept on Wednesday and Friday ; 
almsgiving is aransom for sins. The Lord’s Prayer is to 
be recited thrice a day. The Eucharist is to be celebrated 
each Lord’s Day, and is to be preceded by confession of 
transgressions ‘‘in church.” When the Didachographer 
says (chap. iv.) ‘thou shalt not approach ἐπὶ τὴν προσευχήν 
cov in an evil conscience,’ it may be doubtful whether 
he means ‘‘ to thy praying-place,” or ‘‘to thy prayer,’ but 
probably the former. The word is not used again. 

In tke regulations respecting Baptism (which is, of course, 
presented as an indispensable qualification for partici- 
pating in the Eucharist) a change of person from plural 
to singular is indicative of an accretion of subsequent modifi- 
cations upon the primary injunction to immerse in “‘ living’”’ 
2.€.,1n running water. This rule is pronounced not indis- 
pensable in either of its parts. Running water is not essen- 
tial, if it cannot conveniently be had.* Moreover, warm 
water is allowable in the absence of cold; a provision which 
probably refers to Baptism in a public or private bath.t It 
can hardly refer to hot springs, as these would come under 
the head of running water. Most remarkable is the con- 
cession that trine effusion on the head is valid, where 
there is deficiency of water. Bryennios would restrict this 
to an occasion of necessity, such as clinical Baptism ‘‘ in 
periculo mortis ;’’ but this is not the case contemplated. It 
would seem that we must revise the accepted account of 
the late origin of Baptism by mere effusion. Robert Robin- 
son (p. 109) thinks he has proved that ‘‘ the baptism of 
pouring, a mere vulgar errour, may rank with the white 


* Yet the Catholic tradition in favour of running water is so strong that, 
even in ordinary Baptism by sprinkling, the water must not simply be 
dropped upon the face, the drops must actually flow. 

+ Robert Robinson thinks that, while heathen baths were inadmissible 
as places for Baptism, owing to the idolatrous emblems, the baths of the 
Jews (and later of the Muhammadans) were used for this purpose. He 
says that “Christians who lived among the Moors were some of the last 
who erected baptisteries.” (Hist. of Baptism, p. 64.) 


TWELVE APOSTLES.” 469 


pigeon of Ravenna.’ He explains even the frequent repre- 
sentation in early art, of the pouring of water on to the head 
of a person standing up to the waist ina stream, as a purely 
symbolical expedient of the artist, who of course could not 
draw a picture of a man wholly submerged. ‘‘ What could 
he mean, except that to baptize was to wet all over, to 
cover the whole man with water?” And it is certain that 
no ecclesiastical decision in favour of the validity of 
baptism by mere effusion has been produced, prior to that 
of Pope Stephen III., a.p. 754, in response to the questions 
of monks in Brittany. Is the permission of a practice after- 
wards legitimised in the West* a misleading coincidence, 
or shall we add it to the other faint indications of Western 
influence in the Teaching? It will be observed that the 
Leaching, though twice giving the full formula, as in 
Matt. xxviii. 19, also mentions (chap. ix.) Baptism εἰς 
ὄνομα Κυρίου. Now the only MSS. which in Acts x. 48 refer 
to Baptism ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι τοῦ Kvpiov are apparently 
Western (H, Ll, P.) + 

The qualifications for Baptism are almost purely ethical, 
the preliminary instruction being in no way dogmatic, and 
no express stipulation being made as to the profession of a 
Creed by the neophyte. This must not be pressed too far ; 
no doubt a general agreement with the prevailing standard 
of Christian opinion is presupposed. But the important 
thing is to observe that the acceptance of an ideal of Chris- 
tian conduct forms the real test of admission to the 
Church ; while, as we shall see immediately, the presence 
of a genuine Christian character is the express criterion of 
the validity of the ministry. | 


HIERARCHY. 


The language of the Teaching respecting Church-officers 
has already raised a conflict of opinions as to its precise 


* To this day the Eastern Church does not recognise the validity of 
Baptism without immersion. 

+ The reading is adopted in our A. V., but rejected by R.V. in favour of 
“‘in the name of Jesus Christ.’”” We shall see, however, that Κυρίου and 
τοῦ Κυρίου are not the same thing. 


470 “ THACHING OF THE 


significance*. It does not seem to us that the non- 
sacerdotal and non-hierarchical interpretation of chaps. ΧΙ. 
and xiii.—xv. can be sustained.t A primary order of minis- 
ters is first described, under the designation of apostles and 
prophets (cf. Eph. ii. 20, and especially Eph. 111. 5). They 
are apostles, as having a travelling mission ᾧ ; prophets, as 
belonging to a class of men who “ speak in the spirit,” and 
approved among such as men of faithful life and unselfish 
disinterestedness. The implication that there are Chris- 
tians, speaking in the spirit, but, by reason of their selfish 
character, not entitled to rank as prophets, 15 very curious.§ 
Here, as elsewhere, the Teaching diverges from the Shep- 
herd, who will not allow any but the disinterested prophet 
to be pnewmatophoros. Perhaps the same tendency which 
leads the Didachographer to exclude the hypothesis of 
diabolical influence makes him forbear to distinguish 
between spirit and spirit. His ideal of the ethical require- 
ments for a valid ministry is characteristic and sound. 
He would scarcely allow, with the twenty-sixth Anglican 
article, that Christians may resort to the ministry of evil 
men, ‘‘both in hearing the word of God, and in receiving 
of the Sacraments.”’ 

But even for the Church-teacher, no special dogmatic 
qualification is demanded. His teaching must fully endorse 
the rule of conduct and the simple ritual laid down for the 
general body of Christians; yet he has a large liberty in 
two important respects. He is not restricted to given forms 


* Chap. xii. does not refer to the ministry, but to Christians in general. 
The word παρόδιος “ on the road” (used classically of windows look- 
ing upon the road) can hardly define a professional itinerant. 

+ A warm ’controversy on the subject has been going on in the columns 
of the Irish Ecclesiastical Gazette, Dean Reichel holding, with the Presby- 
terians, that the Teaching discredits High Church notions of Episcopacy. 

t Note the ἀπόστολοι ἐκκλησιῶν in 2 Cor. viii. 23; also the mention of 
Andronicus and Junias or Junia as distinguished ἐν τοῖς ἀποστὅλοις. 
Rom. xvi. 7. 

ὃ The phrase is ἐν πνεύματι, but it will not do to translate “in 
aspirit.” There is no doctrine in the Teaching of spirits, good and bad; 
nothing like the “ believe not every spirit, but try the spirits if they be of 
God, can a J Os1y. 1. 


TWELVE APOSTLES.” 471 


in celebrating the Hucharist.* And, though he may not 
contravene the ethical teaching of the Two Ways, or 
the ordinances of churchmanship, he may develop them, 
for ‘if one teach to increase righteousness and knowledge 
(gnosis) of the Lord, receive ye him as the Lord.” Nay 
more, when the prophet, the minister of tried character, 
speaks in the spirit, it is the ead OTe sin to submit his 
utterance to test or criticism. 

We must here advert to two very puzzling points in the 
Didachographer’s description of the true prophet. ‘‘ No 
prophet, ὁ ῥίζων a table in the spirit, will eat of it, 
unless indeed he is a false prophet.’ The text is not 
Greek. Bryennios corrects to ὁρίζων, translates ‘‘ order- 
ing a table,’ and understands it of directing a meal to be 
prepared for the poor. It were better to render ὁρίζων 
by ‘‘assigning.”’y; But the scribe is not likely to have 
bungled over so straightforward a word as ὁρίζων. We 
prefer to think that the original was ὁ ῥέζων, ‘“ who is 
offering’’; certainly not a common word, and therefore 
more liable to be mistranscribed.t We have seen that 
there is a pronounced sacrificial element in the Teaching, so 
that ‘‘ offering a table’’ may be admissible ag a phrase for 
celebrating the Hucharist. But what will the caution 
imply? Not, surely, non-participation; but that the 
prophet will not profane a sacred ordinance to personal 
uses, by making a meal of the Eucharist; cf. 1 Cor x1. 
92,34. ‘‘ What! have ye not houses to eat and to drink 
in? . . . dfanymanis hungry, let him eat at home.”’ 

More embarrassing is the statement respecting a true 


* Bryennios compares the injunction, ‘‘ Now to the prophets entrust ye 
to offer thanks as much as they will (ὅσα @éAovow)” with the passage in 
which Justin Martyr (I. Apol. 67) says that the president “ offers prayers 
and thanksgivings as much as he is able (ὅση δύναμις αὐτῷ) ᾿᾿; and tries to 
show that both are compatible with the use of forms. So they are; but not 
with restriction to fixed forms. 

+ A friend suggests ‘‘ limiting,’ and understands it of “fencing the 
tables.” But itis hard to see why the exclusion of the unworthy should 
involve the non-participation of the celebrant. 

{ In the sacrificial sense, ῥέζω is used only by the poets; but the word 
occurs in Plato. 


472 “THACHING OF THE 


prophet who is described as “ποιῶν εἰς μυστήριον κόσμικον 
ἐκκλησίας, but not teaching others to do as much as he 
doth himself.” This man is not to be brought to human 
judgment; his judgment is with God; he acts as did the 
ancient prophets. Bryennios, who owns the passage to be 
‘dark and obscure,” thus tentatively translates the diff- 
cult clause: ‘“‘ constituting assemblies for a worldly 
mystery.” By this he understands summoning the people 
to witness a symbolic action, such as Isaiah’s ‘‘ walking 
naked and barefoot’ (Is. xx. 2), Ezekiel’s shaving his head 
_and beard (Ezek. v. 1), and the like. Yet is ‘‘ constituting 
assemblies,” in the classical sense, a likely use of the term 
ἐκκλησία, a term which occurs in two other places of the 
Teaching in the proper Christian acceptation? And would 
any one think of judging a prophet for not teaching others 
to perform purely symbolic acts? We render the clause 
‘doing with an eye to the Church’s mystery in the 
world.’’* But what does this mean ? 

We were at first inclined to borrow a light from a phrase 
of the Syriac Teaching, ‘‘as within the upper room the 
mystery of the body aud blood of our Lord began to prevail 
in the world ;” and thus to see an allusion to the sacrifice 
of Christ, as furnishing an ideal of life (cf. 2 Cor. iv. 11). 
The objection is that such an interpretation of the ‘‘ mys- 
tery’ implies a view of the Eucharist and of the work of 
Christ, foreign to the Teaching. The only λύτρωσις men- 
tioned is of another kind, ‘‘ in case ought thou hast, through 
thy hands shalt thou give a ransom of thy sins” (Ch. iv.) 
The only θυσία is not the sacrifice of Christ, but the 
thank-offering of the baptized. We therefore prefer to 
interpret the clause by help of the second Eucharistic 
Prayer, which speaks-of the scattered Church of God, to be 

* It is objected that ποιέω should not be taken absolutely, in the sense 
of “to act.” The objection seems hypercritical, as there are a few classical 
examples of this, and many Hellenistic instances. But the difficulty may 
be removed by considering the clause “as much as he doth himself” to be 
the object of ποιῶν as well as of ποιεῖν. Were it not for the ordinary use of 


ποιέω in the immediate context, it might be tempting to take ποιῶν like 
ῥέζων in its technical sense of “sacrificing.” 


TWELVE APOSTLES.” 473 


brought from the ends of the earth into his kingdom. The 
‘“‘Church’s mystery in the world”’ is the hidden potency of 
the kingdom of God on earth; a promise, an aspiration, 
and a pattern. The spiritual prospect of its divine though 
latent glory supplies an ethical standard towards which the 
true prophet will ever seek to raise his own life; yet he may 
feel the unwisdom of preaching to the weak the perfection 
at which he aims. He treads in the steps of the prophets 
of old, who, exhibiting in their own persons the life of 
God’s holiness, forbore to fix their precepts of obligation 
‘**too high For sinful men beneath the sky.’’ This interpre- 
tation accords well with the ethical strain of the Teaching. 

The primary ministers recognised in the Teaching fall 
into two classes; apostles, or missionary prophets, and 
prophets who are willing to settle* as ministers 1n a given 
place. The apostles are to stay not more than two days in 
one place, and are to be provided with food, lodging, and 
bread for their journey at the hands of the faithful, but are 
not to receive money, a rule which guards against a very 
obvious and not easily checked abuse of their function. 
But the prcphet who settles is to have a public maintenance. 
He is ‘‘ worthy of his meat’; the Teaching does not say, 
in our Lord’s words, ‘‘ worthy of his hire” (Luke x. 7), 
but he means the same thing. His stipend is not a 
fixed one, but, like the priest (Num. xvii. 12, 13) whose 
representative he is (“they are your high-priests”), he 
is to have the firstfruit of money and raiment as well as 
of produce and of prepared food, the amount of firstfruit 
being fixed at the discretion of the giver.t The poor 

* The word is καθῆσαι (bis), a form (for καθῆσθαι) which we cannot 
find except in a var. lect. at Mark iv. 1. Schleusner gives ἐκάθησεν 
as occurring in a version of Judges v. 17. 

+ The word σιτία here used is not classical. It was understood by the 
Apostolic Constitutions as meaning “hot loaves.” Sophocles’ lexicon of 
later Greek (1870) gives. it with the rendering “batch’’ (on the authority 
of two passages in the Apophthegmata Patrum, A.p. 500, where it means “a 
batch of unbaked dough’’). In the Teaching it probably means “a batch 
of fresh-baked bread;”’? though there is a possibility that it may be the 


seribe’s spelling of σιτεία (like his εἰδωλολατρία (quater) for εἰδωλολατρεία), 
in which case it may mean “a feed,” “a feast.” 


474 “THACHING OF THE 


come in for firstfruit only in case there is no settled 
prophet. 


APPENDIX. 


1. It is clear that these apostles and prophets practically 
answer to the order otherwise distinguished as presbyters, 
a term which does not oecur in the Teaching. And when 
we find in the first chapter (xv.) of the Appendix, that, 
in addition to them, bishops and deacons are to be elected 
by the Christian community, it is plain that ἃ hierarchy 
is in full progress. This of itself would lead us to 
treat the chapter as discovering a new element in the 
Teaching.* Itis a further sign of an altered state of things 
that in this Appendix the ministerial term “ apostles” is 
dropped. Instead of ‘‘apostles and prophets’? we here 
have ‘‘ prophets and teachers ’”’ (0.8). Now the ‘ teacher ’”’ 
already occurs as distinct from the ‘‘prophet’”’ in chap. 
xii.; but in a duplicate clause which has the air of an 
after-thought, designed to countenance the position (side 
by side with the quondam missionary who has settled 
down) of the spiritual man who has never travelled. This 
latter is a link in the descent to the elected officer (cf. 
1 Cor. xii. 20 for the source of the three terms). 

No especial functions are assigned either to the bishops or 
the deacons. Degrees are indicated in these terms, but both 
degrees are entitled to celebrate the liturgia. The original 
meaning of deacon seems already disappearing or lost. As 
distinct from the prophets, whose ministry depends upon 
possession of the spirit, and exhibition of a consistent lite, 
the other two orders occupy the position of a man-made 
ministry. They must be men of character, of the same stamp 
as 1s required in the case of the prophets; but mere election 
by a show of hands (χειροτονήσατε) constitutes their 
warrant of office ; no sort of consecration, or succession, 15 
hinted at.t Yet the Teaching directs that they are to be 

* Weshall give a lineuistic reason for believing that chap. xv., in which 
the “ bishops and deacons ”’ section occurs, belongs to a distinct stratum of 
the Teaching. 

+ Lhe cheirotonesis, or “ stretching forth of hands”’ to vote, must not be 


confused with the epithesis or “ laying on” of handsto ordain, mentioned 
jn 1. Tim. and Heb. 


TWELVE APOSTLES.” 475 


honoured ‘along with” the prophets and teachers. It is 
easy to see how parity would be a step to pre-eminence. As 
the exalted level of the Church’s life declined, the self- 
appointed teachers would gradually fall below the original 
standard ; and, on the other hand, the Church would 
care less for the kind of gifts which they exercised, and 
more for qualities shown by the men of their own selec- 
tion. In the Apostolic Constitutions the “apostles and 
prophets” are (save in one tell-tale phrase) wiped out 
altogether; their place is taken by elected presbyters. 
The Teaching exhibits the transition in process. Its 
author places himself on the side of the settled ministry, 
as against the travelling missionary ; and firmly takes up 
the cause of the elected officers, in opposition to those who 
despised them. 

We note that already church-courts were in operation for 
the trying of moral offences. They took cognisance of the 
selfishness of a grasping spirit, and compelled restitution 
(ch. 1). Their action is probably indicated in the case of 
reproofs administered to the erring ; and Christians con- 
victed of wronging their fellows are to be subjected to a 
species of interdict—‘‘ let no one speak, nor listen of your 
own accord, till he have repented” (ch. xv.). But, as we 
have seen, they are not to sit in judgment on prophets 
whose practical teaching may not come up to the rigid 
standard of zealots (ch. xi.). No such thing as theological 
heresy is anywhere hinted at. 

2. We now come tothe Kyriophany (chap. xvi.). Who is 
the Kyrios ? 

Excepting in the Eucharistic Prayers, the name of Jesus 
Christ does not occur in the Teaching ;* and besides the 
absence of the name, there is a total omission also of any 
reference to any facts distinctive of Christ’s historic per- 
sonality. The Nativity, the Miracles, the Parables, the 
Passion, the Resurrection of Jesus Christ are all passed 


* Nor does it in the Third Epistle of St. John; or in the Shepherd, the 
Epistle to Diognetos, the writings of Athenagoras, Tatian, and Theophilos. 
Much might be said on this subject, but there is no room to discuss it 
here, 


476 “THACHING OF THE 


sub silentio. The three Prayers tell us respectively that 
“through Jesus thy servant”? our Father made known 
(1) ‘‘the holy vine of David,” (2) ‘‘ life and knowledge,” 
(3) “knowledge, faith, and immortality.’ Further than 
this, only two utterances in the Teaching can be said to be 
directly connected with the Master; one is the Lord’s 
Prayer, the other the precept ‘‘ Give not that which is holy 
unto the dogs.’’* Extracts are given in chap. 1. from the 
Sermon on the Mount, but there is no indication of their 
source. The ‘‘ Gospel” is four times mentioned ; in three 
places this may rightly be interpreted of the written record ; 
but not so in chap. xi., where ‘‘the decree (δόγμα) of the 
Gospel” is invoked as the authority for the regulations 
about apostles and prophets. 

In the full Baptismal formula, and in a passage of the 
Kyriophany, Christ is known as “ the Son,” ἐν God’s Son.” 
Elsewhere (excepting of course the Eucharistic Prayers) he 
is the Kyrios. But there is an ambiguity about this word. 
Throughout the Septuagint it represents (at second hand 
through Adhonai) the Tetragrammaton. In the New Tes- 
tament, the prevailing, perhaps the universal, usage is that 
Κύριος, without the article, represents the Tetragrammaton, 
the incommunicable name of God,t while it is admitted on 
all hands that ὁ Κύριος, the Master, refers to Christ. 
In considering the usage of the Teaching we observe a 
peculiarity which marks off chapters xv.—xvi. from the 
rest, and compels us to treat them as a distinct stratum. 
This appendix presents no case of the anarthrous Kyrios ; 
thrice it has Kyrios with the article, and twice (once in each 
chapter) ὁ Κύριος ἡμῶν, ‘our Lord,” an expression which 
no where else occurs in the Teaching. ‘The Kyrios of the 


* An unusual application is made of this saying. It is very frequently 
employed, in patristic writers, as a warning against putting Christian 
truths before the unprepared multitude. Once it is applied as a caution 

, against baptizing the unworthy. But in the Teaching it is used as a 
defence of the exclusion of the unbaptized from the Eucharist. 

+ The subject has been considered, with some dogmatic bias, by Pearson 
and Middleton. Without attempting here to discuss the question, we may 
simply state our conclusion that the anarthrous Κύριος, standing alone, 
invariably means Jehovah. 


TWELVE APOSTLES.” 477 


Kyriophany is therefore the unnamed Christ. But in the 


remainder of the Teaching we have Kyrios four times with 
the article—these places we may of course unhesitatingly 
interpret of Christ; and twelve times without the article — 
here the difficulty comes in. At first we were tempted, 
having reference to certain connections in which Kyrios 
occurs, to treat the omission of the article as insignificant, 
and to interpret the word as a mere synonyme for Christ. 
But on full consideration we reach the conclusion that 
Kyrios without the article, as in the New Testament so in 
the Teaching, means Jehovah. Hence we interpret the title 
of the work ‘‘ Teaching of Jehovah through the twelve 
Apostles to the nations.” In chap. x1. we understand the 
meaning to be, if he that teacheth teach ‘to increase 
righteousness and knowledge of Jehovah, receive ye him as 
Jehovah” (bis).* In the same chapter we interpret τοὺς 
τρόπους Κυρίου ““ Jehovah’s character” (cf. Mt. v. 48, Lk. 
vi. 86). And the expression (chap. xiv.) κυριακὴν Κυρίου 
we take, not as a mere tautology, but as ‘“‘ Jehovah’s Lord’s- 
day,” answering to ‘‘ the Sabbath of Jehovah.” Ὁ 

If then Κύριος means Jehovah, it becomes important to 
determine whether in this sense the term is applied to 
Christ. We must admit that there is a passage in which 
the title ‘‘God” 15 renderedto him. The master of slaves 
is exhorted (chap. iv.) not to lay orders in bitterness on 
his slave or handmaid, ‘‘lest they no more fear the God 
over both (τὸν ἐπ᾽ ἀμφοτέροις θεόν) ; for he cometh not to 
call with respect of person, but to those whom the spirit 
prepared.t A modern reader, accustomed to a severely re- 
stricted use of the word God, must be warned against 
drawing, from this expression alone, too large an inference. 
Taken by itself, it is a phrase which an Arian would freely 


* Compare “He that receiveth you [whomsoever I send Jo. xiii. 20] 
receiveth me, and he that receiveth me, receiveth him that sent me” , 


(Mt. x. 40.) 
+ Compare the phrase “ Hos anna to the God of David.” 
t Afriend suggests that ἔρχεται. . . . καλέσαι may have the force 


of a simple future. The parallel passage in the Barnabas-appendix has 
ἦλθεν, Which shows how it is to be understood. 


478 “THACHING OF THE 


use, and from which even a Socinian would not shrink. 
Yet we cannot but note a doctrinal progression which has 
advanced beyond the pure Ebionism of the Eucharistic 
Prayers. And when we find (chap. ix.) that baptism is 
described as being εἰς ὄνομα Kupiov,* remembering what 
the formula is, as twice given in the Teaching, we can 
hardly doubt that Κύριος here covers Father, Son and Holy 
Spirit, regarded as one Jehovah. 

The Kyriology, then, of the main doctrine comes nearest 
to what is best known as Sabellian. It seems to have 
been carefully put into this form, with a dogmatic purpose, 
which has deliberately excluded every less suggestive appel- 
lation of Christ. How then do we explain the primitive 
state of the Eucharistic Prayers? Partly from reve- 
rence these fragments of an earlier age were preserved 
intact; partly also because, as we may recollect, with 
Humanitarianism pure and simple, Sabellianism has a 
strong historic tendency to coalesce. The Appendix has 
in like manner been left intact; it exhibits some advance 
upon the mere Ebionism of the Prayers, but the interval 
between its Kyriology and that of the main document 
is nevertheless distinctly perceptible. 

A Kyriophany is pointed to, inthe Maranatha (the Lord 
cometh) of the third Eucharistic Prayer. The details of 
the Kyriophany as given in chap. xvi. have some features 
in common with other presentations of the subject, and 
others which are peculiar. The growing vice of the age 
immediately preceding the advent of the Kyrios; the 
multiplication of false prophets; the appearance of a 
W orld-deceiver, who shall bear so close a resemblance to 
the true Son of God as to deceive even the sheep of the 
fold; all these signs of deepening gloom are dwelt upon 
with abundance of detail by other early writers. But when 
we come to the predicted advent, we notice a very remark- 
able peculiarity, inthe omission of all reference to angels. 
And of the three special ‘‘ signs of the truth,” the first ig 


* The Apostolic Constitutions, which otherwise show Arian influence, 
remove this phrase, substituting eis τὸν τοῦ Κυρίου θάνατον, 


TWELVE APOSTLES.” 419 


one not elsewhere specified. It is the sign ἐκπετάσεως ἐν 
οὐρανῷ. ; 

This Bryennios would render “ a soaring up in the sky,’ 
connecting 1t with the account (Thess. iv. 17) of the risen 
and surviving saints who shall together be “‘ caught up 
in the clouds to meet the Lord in the 811. For two sub- 
stantial reasons this will not do. The ekpetasis is a sign 
preceding the resurrection; and the rendering “ soaring” 
depends upon a false etymology.* The ekpetasis is the 
‘‘spreading forth’’; but of what? It has been referred to 
the patristic idea (used also in commenting upon Rom. x. 
40) of the stretching forth of the hands of Jesus at the 
advent, as in the attitude upon the cross.t But itis a sign 
preceding the advent, so this will not do. We are inclined 
to think it suggested by the WD of Joel 11..2. The usual 
rendering of W715 in the LXX. is by ἐκπετάννυμι; and 
though here it is χυθήσεται, yet the Didachographer 
could translate for himself, as is evidenced in his (chap. xiv.) 
citation of Mal. 1. 14. Thus the sign of ekpetasis in the 
sky is the appearance of the thundercloud (followed by the 
thunderclap, ‘‘a trumpet’s voice’’) above which the Kyrios 
shortly appears. 

We have completed our survey of this interesting docu- 
ment, and have only a few words of remark to make in 
conclusion. The age and locality of its production it would 
be premature to attempt to assign. That it is later than 
the Shepherd, older than the Apostolic Constitutions, cannot 
be matter of doubt. Its character is essentially that 


* From πέτομαι we should get ἐκπτῆσις ; and even this would mean soaring 
out, not wp. In Acts iii. 8, ἐξαλλόμενος is indeed translated (even in R.V.) 
“leaping up”; it should be “leaping out” (of the litter). Τῦ 15 true that 
in a passage of Theophylact, ἐξεπέτασας may be rendered “let fly,” a 
secondary sense of “spread forth.” Sophocles gives an example of 
ἐκπέτασις- =“ flying,” but in an author as late as a.p. 950. 

+ Perhaps the earliest mention of “the sign of the cross” inthe sky as 
preliminary to the second advent is in chap. 36 of the dubious Consummation 
of the World, ascribed to Hippolytos. See the remarks of Gerard Voss, 
Theses Theol. et Histor. 1628, p. 270. The idea was suggested by “ the sign 
of the Son of Man in the sky,’ Matt. xxiv. 30. The Teaching does not 
contain the title Son of Man. 


480 “THACHING OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES.” 


of a compilation, and there are distinct evidences of the 
individuality of the compiler, who may, or may not, have 
represented a wide-spread view of the Christian system. 
Its oldest stratum witnesses to the existence of St. John’s 
Gospel. It contains extracts from St. Matthew, and gives 
unmistakable signs of familiarity with St. Luke, with the 
Acts, and with St. Paul’s writings. There is a strong 
Hebraistic flavour about it.* Finally, it points to the prior 
existence of yet older documents, at present undiscovered, 
but which, considering the wonderful finds of recent years, 
we dare not pronounce to be hopelessly lost. 


ALX. GORDON. 


* Yet actual Hebraisms of language are not numerous. Note the use 
of (ter) ἐν, like 2 ; and the phrase, τὴν πύρωσιν τῆς δοκιμασίας, for “testing 
fire ordeal.” There are some traces also of parallelism, 6.6.» 

“In church thou shalt confess thy transgressions: ” 
“And shalt not come to thy praying-place in an evil conscience.” 


800 THE VOCABULARY OF THE TEACHING [ Oct. 


pa Mi MY. 


Cc ee 


ARTICLE VI. ae Ge 


THE VOCABULARY OF THE “TEACHING OF THE 
TWELVE APOSTLES.” 


BY PROF. LEMUEL 5. POTWIN, ADELBERT COLLEGE, CLEVELAND, OHIO. 


I. Irs: VOCABULARY COMPARED WITH THAT OF THE New TEs- 
TAMENT.2 


THE agreement between the New Testament and the Teaching 
in the use of words is in general so obvious and so much a matter 
of course that it is only necessary to notice the points of disagree- 
ment. Are there any words in the Teaching not found in the New 
Testament? Also, are there words in the former with a meaning 
different from that which they bear in the latter? The following 
notes are in answer to the first of these questions. The second 
question seems to allow an almost unqualified negative. ‘The word 
φθορά, which has in the New Testament its classical meaning of cor- 
ruption, destruction (6.5. ἀπὸ τῆς δουλείας τῆς φθορᾶς, Rom. viii. 21), in 
the Teaching (chap. ii.), means abortion, as in the Epistle of Barnabas. 
Also συνοχή (chap. i.), is to be taken more literally than in the New 
Testament. 

In the following list I have intended to include all the words in 
the Teaching that are not found in the New Testament, however 
unimportant they may seem, or however close the connection or 
resemblance. The numbers following each word give the chapter 
and the line in Scribner’s edition. In the remarks in regard to 
usage no notice is taken of the Epistle of Barnabas, the Apostolical 
Constitutions, or the Epitome, if the word is used elsewhere. 

ἀθάνατος, iv. 94. Classical, and in Septuagint. The New Testa- 
ment adjective is ἄφθαρτος (1 Tim. i. 17), which is perhaps not 
used earlier than Aristotle. It also has both the substantives 
ἀφθαρσία (post-classical and in Septuagint):and ἀθανασία, which is 
classical. 

1 [On account of a resemblance between some passages in the first part of this 
Article and portions of an excellent papet upon the same subject in the Journal 
of Christian Philosophy, by Dr. Isaac H. Hall, 10:18. due to the author to say 


that this was intended for the July number of the Bibliotheca Sacra, and all 
except the last two pages stands as it was then written. ~Eps.]. 


1884.] OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES. 801 


᾿ αἰσχρολόγος, iii. 56. Post-classical. The New Testament has 

aicxpodoyia (classical) in Col. 111. 8, and αἰσχρότης (classical), refer- 
ring to the same thing, in Eph. v. 4. 

ἀμφιβολία, xiv. 270. Classical. In Herodotus 5. 74 it means an 
attack from both sides — Peloponnesians on one side and Boeotians 
and Chalcidians on the other. In Aristotle’s Poetic (25. 18) it 
means a verbal ambiguity, used together with the adjective ἀμφίβολος. 
In Plutarch it means doubtfulness. The meaning in the Teaching 
would come from the later usage, and the word might be rendered 
“a misunderstanding’? —a delicate euphemism for ἔρις or μομφή. 
See Col. ili. 18, ἐάν τις πρός τινα ἔχη μομφήν. In Matt. v. 23, 24— 
the parent passage — the expression is ὁ ddeAdds cov ἔχει TL KATA σου. 

ἀνταποδότης, iv. 91. Found elsewhere only in the Epistle of Bar- 
nabas (ch. 19), and Epitome (Bryennios Proleg., p.77). The New 
Testament has ἀνταπόδομα, ἀνταπόδοσις, and ἀνταποδίδωμι. 

αὐθάδεια, ν. 117. Classical. The New Testament has αὐθάδης 
(classical) in Tit. i. 7; 2 Pet. ii. 10. 

γόγγυσος, 111. 66. -Post-classical. The New Testament has yoy- 
γυστής in Jude 16; also γογγύζω and γογγυσμός, all post-classical. 

διαφορά, i. 2. Classical and in Septuagint. The New Testament 
has the adjective διάφορος (classical), but the substantive is either 
διαστολή (post-classical), or διαίρεσις (classical). See Rom. iii. 22; 
1 Gor. xii:,4,10,40,.66,.8). 

διγλωσσία, ii. 42. Found elsewhere only in Epistle of Barnabas 
(ch. 19) and Epitome (Bryennios Proleg. p. 74). 

δίγλωσσος, ii. 42. Classical and in Septuagint. In Thucydides 
it means speaking two languages (4. 109; 8. 85). In the Septua- 
gint it means deceitful. The New Testament has δίλογος (post- 
classical), 1 Tim iii. 8. 

διγνώμων, ii. 41. Found elsewhere only in the Epistle of Barna- 
bas, chap. 19. The Epitome (Bryennios, Proleg., p. 74) has δίγνομος, 
as also some texts of Barnabas. The New Testament has δίψυχος 
(post-classical), James i. 8; iv. 8. 

διπλοκαρδία, v. 116. Found only here and in the Epistle of Bar- 
nabas, chap. 19. 

διψυχέω, iv. 86. Post-classical. The New Testament has δίψυχος. 
See διγνώμων above. 

ἐκπέτασις, xvi. 313. The origin of the word is doubtful, also 
whether it occurs elsewhere or not. If it is from ἐκπετάννυμι it means 


“expansion,” and is found, according to the older texts, in Plutarch’s 
Vou. XLI. No. 164. 101 


802 THE VOCABULARY OF THE TEACHING { Oct. 


De Sera Numinis Vindicta, chap. 23. The disembodied souls expressed 
joy and pleasure “by expansion and diffusion,” 
χύσει. The Didot edition (1868), however, reads ἐπεκτάσει. If the 
word comes from ἐκπέταμαι, which is a later as well as poetic form 


2 , XN Q 
EKTTETUC EL δὲ και δια- 


οἵ ἐκπέτομαι, then it means “flying away.” The only use of it cited 
by Sophocles is dated about 950 a.p.  Bryennios, followed by Canon 
Farrar (Cont. Rev. May 1884), adopts the latter meaning, and identi- 
fies it with the ἁρπαγή of 1 Thess.iv. 17.1 Farrar translates, “ First 
the sign of the flying forth (of the saints) in heaven, then the sign 
of the voice of the trumpet, and the third, the resurrection of the 
dead.” But it requires altogether too much ingenuity to make this 
“flying forth” to come jirst. Why not refer it to the flying forth 
of the angels sent out to gather the elect? This view would make 
the above harmonize with Matt. xxiv. 81: “ And he shall send forth 
his angels [cf. Rev. xiv. 6, ἄγγελον πετόμενον ἐν pecovpavypare| with 
a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect 
from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.” Per- 
haps the ἐκπέτασις refers to some unexplained “sign of the Son of 
Man in heaven” mentioned in the previous verse in Matthew. This 
the paraphrase in the Apostolical Constitutions favors (chap. 32). If 
so, the meaning of “expansion” would seem more probable. Ac- 
cording to Alford, on Matt. xxiv. 30, the Fathers generally supposed 
the “sign” to be a cross in the sky. In any case, the word can 
hardly mean an “opening” in heaven. In the Septuagint ἐκπετάζω 
means to spread out, having for its object a cloud in Job xxvi. 9, 
and the hands in 2 Esdras ix. 5. Canon Farrar says: “ Some sup- 
pose it to mean the sign of Christ with arms outstretched as on the 
cross”; but he ‘cites no evidence that the early Christians looked 
for suchasign. Ifany justification could be found for tampering with 
the manuscript, one would like to read ἐπιφάσεως for ἐκπετάσεως. 

ἐνδέω, iv. 92; v. 128. Classical and in Septuagint. The New 
Testament has ἐνδεής, Acts iv. 34. 

ἐπαοιδός, 111. 59. In Septuagint and classical in the form ἐπῳδός. 
The New Testament seems not to contain the idea of enchantment, 
ie. using the magic spell. We find payevw, Acts viii. 9; μαγία, 

Ἐ1 take this from Bryennios’ note on p. 55 of his edition. The copy received 


by Dr. Ezra Abbot contains Ms. corrections of this note which entirely, and 


most happily, change its meaning making, ἐκπέτασις refer to the appearing of 
the Lord. The corrections are supposed to be by Bryennios himself. They 
erase #22... ἐκπέτασις (line 4), and ὅθεν δή (line 9), and add an illustrative 


quotation from 2 Thess i. 7. 


1884. | OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES. | 803 


viii. 11; μάγος, xiii. 6, 8. The Septuagint applies the word ἐπαοιδός 
to the “ magicians” of Pharaoh and of Nebuchadnezzar. 

ἐριστικός, ill. 53. Classical. The New Testament has ἔρις. and 
ἐρίζω, both classical. 

ζηλοτυπία, y. 118. Classical and in Septuagint, in Num. v., of 
the law of jealousy. The New Testament has ζήλος and derivatives 
(classical), but no compounds; also φθόνος (classical), Acts xiii. 4 ; 
Matt. xxvii. 18, et ἃ]. 

θερμός, vil. 144. Class. and Sept. The New Testament has θέρμη 
(Acts xxviii. 3) and θερμαίνω, but for the adjective, eards (post-clas- 
sical), fervidus, used only figuratively, Rev. iii. 15, 16. 

θράσος, 111. 73. Classical and in Septuagint. The New Testa- 
ment. has θάρσος once (Acts xxviii. 15), used, as generally in the 
classics, in a good sense. 

θρασύτης, γ. 118. Classical. The Septuagint has θρασύς, θρασύνω, 
and θρασυκάρδιος. 

θυμικός, iii. 538... In Arist., and the adverb in Polyb. 18. 37 (20), 12. 

idpdw, i. 52. Classical. The New Test. has the noun, Luke xxii. 44. 

κακοήθης, ii. 45. . Classical. The New Testament has κακοήθεια 
once, Rom. i. 29. 

κοσμοπλάνος, xvi. 304. Found only here and in Apostolical 
Constitutions, τότε φανήσεται 6 KoopomAdvos, and κατακρῖναι τὸν κοσ- 
μοπλάνον διάβολον, Bk. 7, chap. 82. See Bryennios, Proleg. p. 50. 
Compare 2 John 7, πολλοὶ πλάνοι ἐξῆλθον εἰς τὸν κόσμον. 

κυριακή, xiv. 267. Later than New Testament as_ substantive. 
The New Testament has the adjective (post-classical) once of the 
Lord’s supper (1 Cor. xi. 20), and once of the Lord’s day, Rev. i. 10. 

μαθηματικός, 111. 60. Classical as adjective. Polybius has the 
substantive, meaning mathematician, in 9. 19,9. In Sextus Em- 
piricus (A.D. 205) it means astrologer (Sophocles, Lex. s.v.). Tacitus 
and Juvenal (died a.p. 120) call astrologers mathematici. Ter- 
tullian (died A.D. 220) classes together “lenones, perductores, 
aquarioli, sicarii, venenarii, magi, haruspices, harioli, mathematici,”’ 
Apol. 43... For astrologers the Septuagint, in Isa, xlvii. 13, has 
ἀστρολόγοι τοῦ οὐρανοῦ. In Daniel the king calls. τοὺς ἐπαοιδούς 
Kal τοὺς μάγους καὶ τοὺς φαρμακοὺς Kal τοὺς χαλδαίους (il. 2), but the 
word μαθηματικὸς is not found. May not the word, in the sense of 
astrologer, have been re-borrowed from the Latin ? 

μῖσος, xvi. 801. Classical and in Septuagint. The New Testa- 
ment has μισέω, but for the noun uses ἔχθρα, not a precise equiva- 
lent, but the opposite of φιλία, James iv. 


804 THE VOCABULARY OF THE TEACHING ~ [Oct. 


“μνησικακέξω, ii, 41. Classical and in Septuagint, which has also 
μνησίκακος, Prov. xii. 28. 

οἰωνοσκόπος, iii. 58. Classical. The Septuagint has οἰωνίζομαι 
and οἰωνισμός of Joseph’s divining cup, Gen. xliv. ὃ. Also teparo- 
σκόπος, Deut. xviii. 11. Neither the word nor the idea appears in 
the New Testament. 

παιδοφθορέω, ii.'36. In Epistle of Barnabas and later. Compare 
Juvenal x. 304: 

“Non licet esse viro, nam prodiga corruptoris 
Improbitas ipsos audet temptare parentes.”’ 

πανθαμάρτητος, v. 130. Not in Stephanus, Liddell and Scott, or 
Sophocles. Appears to be found only here and in the corresponding 
passages in Epistle of Barnabas (chap. 20) and Apostolical Consti- 
tutions (7, 18). 

παρόδιος, xii. 245. Post-classical. Not in the Septuagint, which, 
however, has πάροδος with the meaning of traveller, 2 Kings xii. 4 
— this from the influence of the Hebrew. 

περικαθαίρω, iii. 60. Classical, and in Septuagint, of Moloch- 
worship, Deut. xviii. 10. 

ποθέω, iv. 83. Classical and in Septuagint. The New Testament 
has ἐπιποθέω (classical). But is not ποθήσεις in the Teaching an 
error of text for ποιήσεις ἢ The corresponding passage in Epistle 
of Barnabas is οὐ ποιήσεις σχίσμα (chap. 19), and in the Apostolical 
Constitutions is οὐ ποιήσεις σχίσματα πρὸς τοὺς ἁγίους. 

πονέω, ν. 125. Classical and in Septuagint. The New Testa- 
ment uses κοπιάω (classical) ; also καταπονέω (post-classical), but not 
with the meaning of labor; also πόνος (classical). 

πονηρόφρων, 111. 67. Found elsewhere ‘only in the Apostolical 
Constitutions, Μὴ ἔσό αὐθάδης, μηδὲ πονηρόφρων (7. 7), and in the 
Epitome (Bryennios;, Proleg. p. 76). 

προνηστεύω, vil. 147. Classical. In Herodotus, of the sacrificial 
ceremonies of the Egyptians, 2, 40. | 

προσεξομολογέω, xiv. 268. I find no examples of this compound 
referred to in the lexicons. ‘The New Testament ‘and Septuagint 
have ὁμολογέω (classical), and ἐξομολογέω (post-classical), which also 
is used in the Teaching iv. 108. 

σιτία, xiii. 261. This word is found in the Apophthegmata Patrum, 
which Sophocles dates about A.D. 500. The meaning is plain from 
the following, to which he refers: Θέλω πληρῶσαι τὸν λογισμόν μου 
μετὰ τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ λαβὼν σιτίαν εἰς τὸ ἀρτοκοπεῖον ἐποίησεν ἄρτους, 


1884. ] OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES. 805 


192, A. ᾿Απῆλθον οὖν εἰς τὸ ἀρτοκοπεῖον ποιῆσαι δύο σιτίας Kal εὗρον 
ἐκεῖ ἀδελφὸν θέλοντα ποιῆσαι ἄρτους, Kal οὐκ εἶχέ τινα δοῦναι, αὐτῷ χεῖρα, 
196, B. For the ᾿Βὰν σιτίαν ποιῇς, τὴν ἀπαρχήν of the Teaching, we 
find in the Apostolical Constitutions (7, 29), πᾶσαν ἀπαρχὴν ἄρτων 
θερμῶν, “hot cakes.” 

συσπάω, iv. 88. Classical. The word properly means to draw 
together, contract; but as in Latin contrahere, as well as retrahere, 
is the opposite of porrigere, so here συσπάω is the opposite of ἐκτείνω. 
Again, συσπᾶν τὰς χεῖρας is not the same as συσπᾶν τοὺς δακτύλους, 
so that Canon Farrar’s “clenches them tight” must be called an 
“improvement.” The New Testament has συστέλλω (classical), 
which is sometimes the opposite of ἐκτείνω, but in Acts v. 6 describes 
the preparation of the body of Ananias for burial — Latin, com- 
ponere. voté\dw is the word used in the remarkable parallel pas- 
sage cited by Bryennios from the Wisdom of Sirach: Μὴ ἔστω ἡ 
χείρ σου ἐκτεταμένη eis τὸ λαβεῖν Kal ἐν τὸ ἀποδιδόναι συνεσταλμένη, 
4,31. Also in the corresponding passage in the Apostolical Con- 
stitutions (7, 11). 

τετράς, Vili. 153. Classical and in Septuagint. The New Testa- 
ment has τετράδιον (post-classical), Acts xii. 4, meaning a company 
of four. 

ὑψηλόφθαλμος, iii. 56. Found elsewhere only in the Epitome 
(Bryennios, Proleg. p. 75). Bryennios points out that where the 
Teaching has μηδὲ αἰσχρολόγος μηδὲ ὑψηλόφθαλμος the Apostolical 
Constitutions has οὐκ ἔσῃ αἰσχρολόγος, οὐδὲ ῥιψόφθαλμοςς. The Sep- 
tuagint has ὑψηλοκάρδιος, Prov. xvi. 5; also κύριε, οὐχ ὑψώθη ἡ 
καρδία μου, οὐδὲ ἐμετεωρίσθησαν ot ὀφθαλμοί pov, Ps. cxxx. (cxxxi.) 1. 
But these expressions refer to haughtiness, and ῥιψόφθαλμος means 
leering, a meaning which the context seems to fasten upon ὑψηλό- 
φθαλμος --- ἐκ yap τούτων ἁπάντων μοιχεῖαι γεννῶνται. Perhaps the 
exhortation has women chiefly in mind, and condemns the opposite 
of modest, downcast eyes. Here the Septuagint furnishes an exact 
parallel in the use of the noun μετεωρισμός. See Wisdom of Sirach, 
xxvi. 9, Πορνεία γυναικὸς ἐν μετεωρισμοῖς ὀφθαλμῶν, καὶ ἐν τοῖς βλεφά- 
ροις αὐτῆς γνωσθήσεται. Compare xxili. 4. 

φαρμακεύω, ii. 87. Classical and in Septuagint. The New Tes- 
tament has φαρμακεία and φαρμακός. 

φθορεύς, v. 127, xvi. 300. Post-classical. The New Testament 
has φθορά and φθείρω, both classical. 

χριστέμπορος, Xii. 201. I find no example cited in the lexicons 


806 THE VOCABULARY OF THE TEACHING [ Oct. 


that is earlier than Α.Ὁ. 326. Bryennios cites two examples from 
the longer Greek Ignatian epistles, which Bishop Lightfoot refers 
to the latter half of the fourth century. See Contemporary Review, 
Feb. 1875. The passages containing these examples are not in the 
shorter epistles, —the Vossian,— which are referred by the same 
authority to the middle of the second century. The word might 
possibly be suggested by 1 Tim. vi. 5, νομιζόντων πορισμὸν εἶναι τὴν 


Ἁ 
εὐσέβειαν. 


REMARKS. 


1. Number and classification. ‘The whole number is ferty-five, 
of which two are found twice, — évdew, φθορεύς; ---- ἃ11 the rest only 
once. Nineteen are substantially the same as New Testament 
words: aicypoddyos, ἀθάνατος, ἀνταποδότης, αὐθάδεια, γόγγυσος, δια- 
φορά, διψυχέω, ἐνδέω, ἐριστικός, θερμός, θράσος, idpow, κακοήθης, κυριακή, 
μῖσος, προσεξυμολογέω, τετράς, φαρμακεύω, φθορεύς. As to their 
distribution in the Teaching, two are in chap. i. διαφορά, ἱδρόω ; 
seven in chap. ii., παιδοφθορέω, φαρμακεύω, μνησικακέω, διγνώμων, 
δίγλωσσος, διγλωσσία, κακοήθης ; eleven in chap. ili., ἐριστικός, θυμικός; 
αἰσχρολόγος, ὑψηλόφθαλμος, οἰωνοσκόπος, ἐπαοιδός, μαθηματικός, περικα- 
θαίρω. γόγγυσος, πονηρόφρων, θράσος ; six in chap. iv., ποθέω, διψυχέω, 
συσπάω, ἀνταποδότης, ἐνδέω, ἀθάνατος ; seven in chap. v., διπλοκαρϑδία, 
αὐθάδεια, ζηλοτυπία, θρασύτης, πονέω, φθορεύς, πανθαμάρτητος, with ἃ 
repetition of ἐνδέω ; two inchap. vii., θερμός, προνηστεύω ; one in chap. 
vill., τετράς; two in chap. xii., παρόδιος, χριστέμπορος ; one in chap. 
xili., σιτία ; three in chap. xiv., κυριακή, προσεξομολογέω, ἀμφιβολία ; 
three in chap. xvi., μῖσος, κοσμοπλάνος, ἐκπέτασις, with a repetition 
of φθορεύς. Thirty-three of the forty-five occur in the first five 
chapters. As to usage, twenty-five are classical, of which fivteen 
are found in the Septuagint, ἀθάνατος (Sept.), ἀμφιβολία, αὐθάδεια, dia- 
φορά (Sept.), δίγλωσσος (Sept.), ἐνδέω (Sept.), ἐπαοιδός (ἐπῳδός) (S.), 
ἐριστικός, ζηλοτυπία (Sept.), θερμός (Sept.), θράσος (Sept.), θρασύτης. 
ἱδρόω, κακοήθης, μαθηματικός (as adjective), μῖσος (Sept.), μνησικακέω 
(Sept.), οἰωνοσκόπος, περικαθαίρω (Sept.), ποθέω (Sept.), πονέω (Sept.), 
προνηστεύω, συσπάω, τετράς (Sept.), φαρμακεύίω (Sept.). Four are post- 
classical, without being ecclesiastical merely, αἰσχρολόγος, θυμικός, παρό- 
dios, φθορεύς. Four are found in the early Christian fathers, γόγγυσος, 
διψυχέω, κυριακή, παιδοφθορέω. Two are not found earlier than the 
fourth century, σιτία, χριστέμπορος. Eight are not found outside of 
that tetralogy which contains so many identical passages, viz. the 


1884. ] “OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES: © Watt 50 


Teaching, the Epistle of Barnabas, the Apostolical Constitutions, 
and the Epitome: ἀνταποδότης, διγλωσσία, and διγνώμων(-ος) being 
in Barnabas and Epitome, πανθαμάρτητος in Barnabas and Apostol- 
ical Constitutions, πονηρόφρων in Apostolical Constitutions and 
Epitome, διπλοκαρδία in Barnabas, κοσμοπλάνος inApostolical Con- 
stitutions, and ὑψηλόφθαλμος in the Epitome. The only: word found 
nowhere except in the Teaching’ is προσεξομολογέω.. ~This Hilgen- 
feld changes to προεξ. One word, ἐκπέτασις, is doubtful. 

2. To make the best use of this list of words, let us assume that 
no other writing stands, as the source of its vocabulary, between the 
Teaching and the New Testament, whatever may have been the in- 
terval of time. Let us, for the moment, forget the existence of the 
Epistle of Barnabas, the Apostolical Constitutions, and the Epitome. 
Assuming that the connection: with the New Testament is imme- 
diate, and not at second hand, we cau see that the vocabulary of the 
Teaching, with the exception of two or three words, marks it as a 
natural and early successor, if not a companion in origin, of the 
New Testament writings. Tirst, there is largely the same word- 
list. ‘Secondly, the words that are substantially, but not exactly, 
identical indicate a writer whose mind is filled with New Testament 
ideas, but is not anxious, as a forger might well be, to reproduce the 
exact New Testament forms. Thirdly, the classical. words. were, 
the most of them certainly, the rest probably, still in current use in 
the first and second centuries of our era. Fourthly, more than halt 
of these classical words are in the Septuagint, which must have 
joined with the New Testament writings in forming the early 
Christian vocabulary. Fifthly, the eight ecclesiastical words given 
above —not included among those which are substantially in the 
New Testament — are compounds which might easily arise without 
leaving any other trace in’ the scanty remains of early Christian 
writing. This leaves three words, ἐκπέτασις, σιτία; and χριστίμπορος. 
If the first is from ἐκπετάννυμι, then it is found in Plutarch, and falls 
into line with the rest. If it is from ἐκπέταμαι, then, as a derivative 
in the common formative ending -ous, it need not be held very strictly 
to contemporary usage; for it might be formed at any time, by any 
writer, as readily as we form words in -ing. It is not so easy to 
explain the other two words in harmony with the second-century 
origin of the Teaching. Σιτία is not a word that would be likely to 
be coined by a writer, like some rhetorical compounds that flash 
upon the mind in the heat of composition. It has the appearance of 


808 THE VOCABULARY OF TIE TEACHING | Oct. 


a genuine late word, later, even than the Apostolical Constitutions, 
which has ἄρτους instead. Χριστέμπορος might be the coinage of a 
vigorous writer; but the connection hardly suggests this. These 
words are only two among’ many; but in such cases majorities do 
not rule. These two do not necessarily prove that the ‘Teaching 
is of late date, but they demand an explanation. If in the Anglo- 
Saxon Gospels one should find the word “biscuit,” it would not 
prove that the Gospels were as late as the French word; the French 
word would be thrown out as spurious. So these words may be 
thrown out as interpolations, or they may be proved to have existed 
as early as the second century, or they may be left as doubtful; but 
they require to be considered. If they belong toa later addition, then 
the limits of the addition must be sought for. As to χριστέμπορος, 
if it should turn out to be an interpolation, it would not be the only 
time that it has figured in that capacity, as the Ignatian [Epistles 
testify. Leaving all this undecided, let us pass to the second part 
of our subject. 


Il. THe VocABULARY OF ‘THE TEACHING COMPARED WITH THAT 
OF THE EPISTLE OF BARNABAS. 


The comparison of the Teaching with the New. Testament in 
respect to vocabulary will yield little of value, if we are shut up to 
the opinion that the Teaching is later than the Epistle of Barnabas. 
Before we go further, then, this question must be considered. 

The Epitome and Apostolical Constitutions need not be taken 
into account, as it may be assumed that they are both later than the 
Epistle. 1 will confine the comparison to the vocabulary only. 
Difference of vocabulary, where the course of thought is substan- 
tially the same, may be either rhetorical or grammatical and lexical. 
In the case before us both these kinds of difference can best be seen 
by examining the two writings in parallel arrangement. The com 
parison is not between the whole of both, but between the eighteenth, 
nineteenth, and twentieth chapters of Barnabas, which are given 
entire, and portions of the first six chapters of the Teaching, which 
are detached from their connection. The figures preceding the 
extracts in the right hand column denote the lines in Scribner’s 
edition. ‘The text of Barnabas is taken from the Prolegomena of 
Bryennios’ edition of the Teaching, and the arrangement deviates 
but very little from that which is indicated by his marginal references 
and special type. 


1884.) 


BARNABAS. 
18. Μεταβῶμεν δὲ καὶ ἐπὶ ἑτέραν 
ὋὉδοὶ δύο εἰσὶ 


Ἂ A Ν 3 is 4 a A 
διδαχῆς καὶ ἐξουσίας, ἥτε TOU φωτὸς 


γνῶσιν καὶ διδαχήν. 


καὶ ἡ τοῦ σκότους: διαφορὰ δὲ πολλὴ 
la ΄ A 9 a 
τῶν δύο ὁδῶν. “Ed ἧς μὲν yap εἰσι 
τεταγμένοι φωταγωγοὶ ἄγγελοι τοῦ 
A 7 ἢ A A 
Θεοῦ, ἐφ᾽ ἧς δὲ ἄγγελοι τοῦ σατανᾶ: 
καὶ ὁ μέν ἐστι κύριος ἀπ᾽ αἰώνων καὶ 
εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, ὁ δὲ ἄρχων καιροῦ 
τοῦ νῦν τῆς ἀνομίας. 
19. Ἢ οὖν 6065 τοῦ φωτός ἐστιν 
Ψ 37” Υ̓ eQ\ € id pee | 
αὕτη" ἐάν τις θέλων ὁδὸν ὁδεύειν ἐπὶ 
τὸν ὡρισμένον τόπον σπεύσῃ τοῖς 
3, 3 A +f > ε A 
ἔργοις αὐτοῦ. Ἔστιν οὖν ἡ δοθεῖσα 


ε a »“" A Lal 2 3 Lal 
YW γνωσιες TOU περίπατειν ἐν QuTy) 


“ 3 id ’, ΄ 
τοιαύτη: ᾿Αγαπήσεις τόν σε ποιή- 
σαντα, φοβηθήσῃ τόν σε πλάσαντα, 
δοξάσεις τόν σε λυτρωσάμενον ἐκ θα- 

, + ε a Ὁ ΄, Ν 
vatov. “Eon ἁπλοῦς τῇ καρδίᾳ καὶ 
Οὐ κολλη- 


θ 7 Ν oe 4 9 50 A 
yo” μετα TWV TOPEVO[LLEVOV €V O ῳ 


πλούσιος τῷ πνεύματι. 
4 ’ Ν ἃ 3 3, 
θανάτους Μισήσεις πὰν ὃ οὐκ ἔστιν 
a“ “Ὁ , a 
ἀρεστὸν τῷ Θεῷ, μισήσεις πᾶσαν 
,ὔ 
ὑπόκρισιν, οὐ μὴ ἐγκαταλίπῃς ἐντο- 
Ads Κυρώυ. Οὐχ ὑψώσεις σεαυτόν, 
» ἈΝ , Ἂν ᾿ 3 
ἔσῃ δὲ ταπεινόφρων κατὰ πάντα, οὐκ 
> je 
Ov λήψῃ 


Ν ‘\ \ A 4 
βουλὴν πονηρὰν κατὰ τοῦ πλησίον 


3 a > Ν Ν 74 
αρεις ἐπι σεξᾶντον δόξαν. 


σου. Οὐ δώσεις τῇ ψυχῇ σου θρά- 
3 , 3 ΄ 
gos. Ov πορνεύσεις, ov μοιχεύσεις, 


ov παιδοφθορήσεις. Οὐ μή σου ὃ 


fe ἴω lal 2¢/ 9 3 / 
λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐξέλθῃ ἐν ἀκαθαρσίᾳ 


τινῶν. Οὐ λήψῃ πρόσωπον ἐλέγξαι 


τινὰ ἐπὶ παραπτώματι. “Eon πραΐς, 
Vou. XLI. No. 164. 


OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES. 


809 


TEACHING. 


(3) ‘Odot δύο εἰσί, pia τῆς ζωῆς 
καὶ μία τοῦ θανάτου, διαφορὰ δὲ 
πολλὴ μεταξὺ τῶν δύο ὁδῶν. 


(5) Ἡ μὲν οὖν ὁδὸς τῆς ζωῆς 


9 Ψ 
εστιν αὐτΉ" 


(9) Τούτων δὲ 


διδαχή ἐστιν αὕτη- Evdoyetre τοὺς 


a if € 
τῶν λόγων 7 


καταρωμένους ὑμῖν κ-τ.λ. 
(5) Πρῶτον, ἀγαπήσεις τὸν Θε- 
Ν 4 
ὃν τὸν ποιήσαντά σε" δεύτερον, 
τὸν πλησίον σου ὡς σεαυτόν: πάν- 
Nang) aN ’ὔ \ ’ Ψ. 
τα δὲ ὅσα ἐὰν θελήσῃς μὴ γίνεσθαί 
Ν \ 39, Ν la 
σοι, καὶ σὺ ἄλλῳ μὴ ποίει. 


(105) Μισήσεις πᾶσαν ὑπό- 
κρισιν καὶ πᾶν ὃ μὴ ἀρεστὸν τῷ 
Κυρίῳ. Οὐ μὴ ἐγκαταλίπῃς ἐντο- 
λὰς Κυρίου. 

(72) Οὐχ ὑψώσεις σεαυτόν. 


(46) Οὐ λήψη βουλὴν πονηρὰν 
κατὰ τοῦ πλησίον σου. 

(73) Οὐδε δώσεις τῇ ψυχῇ σου 
θράσος. 

(95) Δευτέρα δὲ ἐντολὴ τῆς 
διδαχῆς Οὐ φονεύσεις, οὐ μοιχεύ- 
σεῖς, ov παιδοφθορήσεις, οὐ πορ-. 
νεύσεις, οὐ κλέψεις, οὐ μαγεύσεις, 
ov φαρμακεύσεις. | 

(84) Ov λήψῃ πρόσωπον ἐλέγ- 
fat ἐπὶ παραπτώμασιν. 

(69) Ἴσθι δὲ πραΐς, ἐπεὶ of πρα- 
102 : 


810 


BARNABAS. 
ἔσῃ ἡσύχιος, ἔσῃ τρέμων τοὺς λόγους 


aA 3, 3 la a 
ous ἤκουσας. Ov μνησικακήσεις τῷ 


ἀδελφῷ σου. Οὐ μὴ διψυχήσῃς, πό- 


A 
τερον ἔσται ἢ ov. Οὐ μὴ λάβῃς ἐπὶ 
Δ A 3 ,ὔ 3 , 
ματαίῳ τὸ ὄνομα Kupiov. ᾿Αγαπη- 
\ - e Ν \ 4 
σεις TOV πλησίον σου ὑπὲρ τὴν ψυχήν 


σου. Οὐ φονεύσεις τέκνον ἐν φθορᾷ, 
Οὐ 


Ny, A r Ν A A 
μὴ ἄρῃς τὴν χεῖρά σου ἀπὸ τοῦ υἱοῦ 


LENDS , Ν 3 a 
οὐδὲ πάλιν γεννηθὲν ἀποκτενεῖς. 


σου ἢ ἀπὸ τῆς θυγατρός σου, ἀλλ᾽ 
ἀπὸ νεότητος διδάξεις φόβον Κυ- 
plov. Οὐ μὴ γένῃ ἐπιθυμῶν τὰ 
μὴ γένῃ 
πλεονέκτης, οὐδὲ κολληθήσῃ ἐκ ψυ- 
χῆς σου μετὰ ὑψηλῶν, ἀλλὰ μετὰ 


A 4 3 
τοῦ πλησίον σου, οὐ 


“ \ ῳ > , 
ταπεινῶν καὶ δικαίων ἀναστραφήσῃ. 
Τὰ συμβαίνοντά σοι ἐνεργήματα ὡς 
ἀγαθὰ προσδέξῃ, εἰδὼς ὅτι ἄνευ Θεοῦ 


ὑδὲ , 3 μὴ , 
οὐδὲν γίνεται. Οὐκ ἔσῃ διγνώμων 
ΕΣ Ῥ \ \ / 
οὐδὲ δίγλωσσος" παγὶς yap θανάτου 

> \ ε ὃ , ε γ 
ἐστὶν ἣ διγλωσσία. Ὑποταγήσῃ κυ- 


, ε ’ Lal 3 3 vA \ 
plots ws TUT Θεοῦ ἐν αισχυνῃ και 


΄, > Sa δ 9 , , Nn 
φόβῳ: ov μὴ ἐπιτάξῃς δούλῳ σου ἢ 
, a \ 

παιδίσκῃ σου ἐν πικρίᾳ τοῖς ἐπὶ 
Ν 9. Ἅ Ν > / , 3 
τὸν αὐτὸν Θεὸν ἐλπίζουσι, μήποτε οὐ 


φοβηθῶσι τὸν ἐπ᾽ ἀμφοτέροις Θεόν’ 


THE VOCABULARY OF THE TEACHING 


[ Oct. 


TEACHING. 

A Δ A A ’ 
εἷς κληρονομήσουσι τὴν γῆν. Τίνου 
μακρόθυμος καὶ ἐλεήμων καὶ ἄκα- 
κος καὶ ἡσύχιος καὶ ἀγαθὸς καὶ 

[ \ , Ν δ, 
τρέμων τοὺς λόγους διὰ παντός, 
οὺς ἤκουσας. 

(40) Οὐ κακολογήσεις, οὐ μνη- 
σικακήσεις. 

(85) Οὐ διψυχήσεις, πότερον 
3, A A 
ἔσται ἢ OV. 

(40) Οὐκ ἐπιορκήσεις, οὐ ψευ- 
δομαρτυρήσεις. 

(47) Οὐ μισήσεις πάντα ἄν- 
θρωπον, ἀλλὰ ods μὲν ἐλέγξεις, 
\ be & tes cat δὲ 3 
περὶ δὲ ὧν προσεύξῃ, os δὲ ἀγα- 

πήσεις ὑπὲρ τὴν ψυχήν σου. 

(387) Οὐ φονεύσεις τέκνον ἐν 
φθορᾷ οὐδὲ γεννηθὲν ἀποκτενεῖς. 

& 

(95) Οὐκ ἀρεῖς τὴν χεῖρά σου 
ἀπὸ τοῦ υἱοῦ σου ἢ ἀπὸ τῆς θυγα- 

’ > Ν “εν , 
τρός σου, ἀλλὰ ἀπὸ νεότητος δι- 
δάξεις τὸν φόβον τοῦ Θεοῦ. 

(39) Οὐκ ἐπιθυμήσεις τὰ τοῦ 
πλησίον. 

(44) Οὐκ ἔσῃ πλεονέκτης οὐδὲ 
9 
ἅρπαξ. 

(75) Οὐ κολληθήσεται ἡ ψυχή 
σου μετὰ ὑψηλῶν, ἀλλὰ μετὰ δὲ- 
καίων καὶ ταπεινῶν ἀναστραφήσῃ. 
Τὰ συμβαίνοντά σοι ἐνεργήματα 
ε 9 θὸ δέξ ἰδὰ Φ ” 
ὡς ἀγαθὰ προσδέξῃ εἰδὼς ὅτι ἄτερ 
Θεοῦ οὐδὲν γίνεται. 

- 3 + ’ ΟΝ 

(41) Οὐκ ἔσῃ διγνώμων οὐδὲ 
δίγλωσσος: παγὶς γὰρ θανάτου ἡ 

, 3 7 ε / 
διγλωσσία. Οὐκ ἔσται ὃ λόγος σου 
ψευδής, οὐ κενός, ἀλλὰ μεμεστω- 
μένος πράξει. 

(98) Οὐκ ἐπιτάξεις δούλῳ σου 
Ἃ , Ἦν hon Se SM \ 
ἢ παιδίσκῃ; τοῖς ἐπὶ TOV αὐτὸν Θεὸν 
ἐλπίζουσιν, ἐν πικρίᾳ σου, μήποτε 


οὐ μὴ φοβηθήσονται τὸν ἐπ᾽ ἀμ- 


1884. | 


BARNABAS. 


bid > 3 Ν ,, 4 
ὅτι ἦλθεν οὐ κατὰ πρόσωπον καλέσαι, . 


35Ἃ ee Jew fi ἃ Ν A ε 0; 
αὴ, ἐφ ους ΤΟ πνευμα ἡτοιμασὲεν. 


Kow»vyces ἐν πᾶσι τῷ πλησίον σου 
‘ 3 ee to τΥΝ * 3 Ν 3 A 
Kal οὐκ ἐρεῖς ἴδια εἶναι: εἰ γὰρ ἐν τῷ 
ἰφθά κοι ί ἐστε, πόσῳ μᾶλ- 
ἀφθάρτῳ κοινωνο , πόσῳ μ 
3 Ἂ 4 [ΩΣ 3 + , 
λον ἐν τοῖς φθαρτοῖς ; Οὐκ ἔσῃ πρό- 
γλωσσος" παγὶς γὰρ στόμα θανάτου. 


Ὅσον δύνασαι ὑπὲρ τῆς ψυχῆς σου 


ἁγνεύσεις. 
a : A A 
λαβεῖν ἐκτείνων τὰς χεῖρας, πρὸς δὲ 
an a 3 ’ 
τὸ δοῦναι συσπῶν. ᾿Αγαπήσεις ὡς 
, a > ~ id 4 
κόρην τοῦ ὀφθαλμοῦ σου πάντα τὸν 
a \ A 
λαλοῦντά σοι τὸν λόγον τοῦ Κυρίου. 
΄, ε ΄ / ᾿ ε , 
Μνησθήσῃ ἡμέραν κρίσεως ἡμέρας 
\ Ἁ Ν 3 7. 9) -4 4 
καὶ νυκτὸς Kal ἐκζητήσεις καθ᾽ ἑκά- 
στὴν ἡμέραν τὰ πρόσωπα τῶν ἁγίων, 
ἢ διὰ λόγου κοπιῶν καὶ πορευόμενος 
εἰς τὸ παρακαλέσαι καὶ μελετῶν εἰς 
Ν a Ν el , “Δ Ν a 
τὸ σῶσαι ψυχὴν τῷ λόγῳ ἢ διὰ τῶν 
χειρῶν σου ἐργάσῃ eis λύτρον ἅμαρ- 
A ϑ / NOLEN y edge 
τιῶν σου. Οὐ διστάσεις δοῦναι, οὐδὲ 


Ἂ \ r 4 \ , ε a 
διδοὺς γογγύσεις ᾿ γνωσῃ δὲ TLS ὍΤΟυ 


Φυλά- 
fas ἃ παρέλαβες, μήτε προστιθεὶς 
μήτε ἀφαιρῶν. 
τὸ πονηρόν. 


μισθοῦ καλὸς ἀνταποδότης. 


Lis τέλος μισήσεις 
Οὐ 


ποιήσεις σχίσμα, εἰρηνεύσεις δὲ μα- 


Κρινεῖς δικαίως. 


χομένους συναγαγών. ᾿Εξομολογήσῃ 


279% ε / 3 / iN 
ἐπὶ ἁμαρτίᾳ σου, ov προσήξεις ἐπὶ 


OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES. 


Μὴ γίνου. πρὸς μὲν τὸ. 


811 


TEACHING. 


? ’ 3 Ἀ »” 
φοτέροις. Θεόν: οὐ yap ἔρχεται. 


κατὰ πρόσωπον καλέσαι, ἀλλ᾽ ἐφ᾽ 
οὺς τὸ πνεῦμα ἡτοίμασεν. Ὑμεῖς 
δὲ οἱ δοῦλοι ὑποταγήσεσθε τοῖς 
κυρίοις ὑμῶν ὡς τύπῳ Θεοῦ ἐν 
αἰσχύνῃ καὶ φόβῳ. 

ar ? Necks 

(92) Οὐκ ἀποστραφήσῃ τὸν év- 

δεόμενον, συγςοινωνήσεις δὲ πάντα 
Lod ot ἊΝ Ν,) 3 3 ΔΥΣῚ 
τῷ ἀδελφῷ σου καὶ οὐκ ἐρεῖς ἴδια 
εἶναι" εἰ γὰρ ἐν τῷ ἀθανάτῳ κοι- 
νωνοί ἐστε, πόσῳ μᾶλλον ἐν τοῖς 
θνητοῖς ; 
3 Ν \ , 

(134) Ei μὲν yap δύνασαι Ba- 

Le o ἣν Ν A ’ 
στάσαι ὅλον τὸν ζυγὸν τοῦ Κυρίου, 

, δ 9 3 > , a 
τέλειος ἔσῃ" εἰ δ᾽ ov δύνασαι, ὃ 
δύνῃ τοῦτο ποίει. 

(86) Μὴ γίνου πρὸς μὲν τὸ λα- 
βεῖν ἐκτείνων τὰς χεῖρας, πρὸς δὲ 
τὸ δοῦναι συσπῶν': 

(718) Τέκνον μου, τοῦ λαλοῦν- 

, ‘ / “ A 
Tos σοι τὸν λόγον τοῦ Θεοῦ μνη- 
σθήσῃ νυκτὸς καὶ ἡμέρας, τιμήσεις 
Ἂς > Ν ε 7 4 Ν ε 
δὲ αὐτὸν ὡς Ἰζύριον: ὅθεν γὰρ ἡ 
κυριότης λαλεῖται, ἐκεὶ ἸΚύριός 
9 , AN > Φ' , 

. Ex ε 

Se ᾿Βκζητήσ bs δὲ Key ἡμέραν 
τὰ πρόσωπα τῶν ἁγίων, ἵνα ἐπανα- 
παύῃ τοῖς λόγοις αὐτῶν. 

(88) ᾿Βὰν ἔχῃς, διὰ τῶν χειρῶν 
σου δώσεις λύτρωσιν ἁμαρτιῶν 
σου. Οὐ διστάσεις δοῦναι οὐδὲ 
διδοὺς γογγύσεις" γνώσῃ γὰρ τίς 
ἐστιν 6 τοῦ μισθοῦ καλὸς ἀντα- 
ποδότης. 

(107) Φυλάξεις δὲ ἃ παρέλα- 

? \ 4 3 a 
Bes, μήτε προστιθεὶς μήτε ἀφαιρῶν. 

(89) Οὐ ποθήσεις σχίσμα, εἰ- 
ρηνεύσεις δὲ μαχομένους" κρινεῖς 
δικαίως. 

3 9 ΄ 3 
(108) Ἐν ἐκκλησίᾳ ἐξομολο- 


, 4 Ν 
γήσῃ τὰ παραπτώματά, σου, καὶ 


812. 


BARNABAS. 
προσευχὴν ἐν συνειδήσει πονηρᾷ. 
Αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ ὁδὸς τοῦ φωτός. 


20. Ἢ δὲ τοῦ μέλανος ὁδὸς σκολιά 
9 ‘\ , ’ὔ ε Ν ᾽ὔ’ 
ἐστι καὶ κατάρας μεστή! ὁδὸς γάρ 
ἐστι θανάτου αἰωνίου μετὰ τιμωρίας, 
2 κι, ks a 3 -, Ν Ν 
ἐν ἢ ἐστι τὰ ἀπολλύντα τὴν ψυχὴν 
αὐτῶν εἰδωλολατρεία, θρασύτης, ὕψος 
δυνάμεως, ὑπόκρισις, διπλοκαρδία, 

, , (3 , e ig 
μοιχεία, φόνος, ἁρπαγή, ὑπερηφανία, 
παράβασις, δόλος, κακία, αὐθάδεια, 
,ὔ , λ ζ, > 

φαρμακεία, μαγεία, πλεονεξία, ἀφο- 

’ ἴων n lal > A 
Bia Θεοῦ: διῶκται τῶν ἀγαθῶν, μι- 
σοῦντες ἀλήθειαν, ἀγαπῶντες ψεῦδος, 
οὐ γινώσκοντες μισθὸν δικαιοσύνης, 
οὐ κολλώμενοι ἀγαθῷ, οὐ κρίσει δι- 
καίᾳ, χήρᾳ καὶ ὀρφανῷ οὐ προσέχον- 
φόβον 


A ? a 
Θεοῦ, ἀλλ᾽ ἐπὶ TO. πονηρόν, ὧν pa- 


τες, ἀγρυπνοῖντες οὐκ els 


κρὰν καὶ πόρρω πραὔτης καὶ ὑπομονή" 
ἀγαπῶντες μάταια, διώκοντες ἀντα- 
πόδομα, οὐκ ἐλεοῦντες πτωχόν, οὐ 
πονοῦντες ἐπὶ ᾿καταπονουμένῳ, εὖχε- 
ρεῖς ἐπὶ καταλαλιᾷ, οὐ γινώσκοντες 
τὸν ποιήσαντα αὐτούς, φονεῖς τέκνων, 
φθορεῖς πλάσματος Θεοῦ, ἀποστρε 
φόμενοι τὸν ἐνδεόμενον, καταπονοῦν- 
τες τὸν θλιβόμενον, πλουσίων παρά- 
κλητοι, πενήτων, ἄνομοι κριταί, παν- 


θαμάρτητοι. 


THE VOCABULARY OF THE TEACHING 


[ Oct. 


TEACHING. 
> λ , ΔΝ , 
οὐ προσελεύσῃ ἐπὶ προσευχὴν σου 
ἐ εἰδήσει πονηρᾷ. Αὕτη ἐστὶν 
ἐν συνειδήσει πονηρᾷ. n 
ξ 560 Ν A 
ἡ 0003 τὴς ζωῆς. 
ε “A ε ¢ 
(112) Ἧ δὲ τοῦ θανάτου 600s 
ἐστιν αὕτη: πρῶτον πάντων πονη- 
ρά ἐστι καὶ κατάρας μεστή: 
, a ’ 
φόνοι, μοιχεῖαι, ἐπιθυμίαι, πορ- 
νεῖαι, κλοπαΐ, εἰδωλολατρεῖαι, μα- 
“- an 2 , 
γεῖαι, φαρμακεῖαι, ἁρπαγαί, ψευδο- 
μαρτυρίαι, ὑποκρίσεις, διπλοκαρδία, 
ld e ld ld 3 4 
δόλος, ὑπερηφανία, κακία, αὐθά- 
δεια, πλεονεξία, αἰσχρολογία, ζη- 
id 
λοτυπία, θρασύτης, ὕψος, ἀλαζο- 
νεία: διῶκται ἀγαθῶν, μισοῦντες 
ἀλήθειαν, ἀγαπῶντες ψεῦδος, οὐ 
γινώσκοντες μισθὸν δικαιοσύνης, 
οὐ κολλώμενοι ἀγαθῷ οὐδὲ κρίσει 
ιε 
A 4 
δικαίᾳ, ἀγρυπνοῦντες οὐκ εἰς TO 
> Q a 
ἀγαθόν, ἀλλ᾽ εἰς τὸ πονηρόν" ὧν 
AA ‘ 4 
μακρὰν πραὔτης καὶ ὑπομονή, μά- 
A ld 
ταια ἀγαπῶντες, διώκοντες ἀνταπό- 
A ld 
dopa, οὐκ ἐλεοῦντες πτωχόν, OD 
“ Ὁ 
πονοῦντες ἐπὶ καταπονουμένῳ, οὐ 
γινώσκοντες τὸν ποιήσαντα αὐτούς, 
φονεῖς τέκνων, φθορεῖς πλάσματος 
Θεοῦ, ἀποστρεφόμενοι τὸν ἐνδεόμε- 
νον, καταπονοῖντες τὸν θλιβόμενον, 
πλουσίων παράκλητοι, πενήτων ἄνο- 
μοι κριταΐ, πανθαμάρτητοι: ῥυσ- 


’, , aa ca? 
θείητε, τεκνα, ATO τούτων QATAVTWV. 


REMARKS. 


1. The most striking fact in the comparison is, of course, the 
close resemblance, amounting in many sentences to absolute iden- 
tity. The-resemblance is closer than between the Sermon. on 
the Mount in Luke and the corresponding passages in Matthew. 
It is very different, however, from the resemblance between the 
Teaching and the seventh book of the Apostolical Constitutions. 
The latter has the same language as the Teaching, in almost 
exactly the same order, from beginning to end; a large amount of 
additional matter being interspersed, so that it is a sort of running 


1884. | OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES. 818. 


commentary on the Teaching. The Epitome, also, so far as it goes, 
But the Epistle of Barnabas, in the portions 
here compared, has, without much difference in amount, marked 
differences of arrangement. The Teaching has a more natural and 
logical order, as will appear not by this parallel arrangement, but 
by the comparative reading of both in course. 

2. The differences that are merely grammatical or strictly verbal, 


has the same order. 


without affecting the sense, are the following : 


BARNABAS. 
ch. 18. ἥ τε... Kat ἡ 
τῶν δύο ὁδῶν 
ch. 19. ὃ οὐκ ἔστιν ἀρεστόν 
3 ’ News. NX , 
ἐλέγξαι τινὰ ἐπὶ παραπτώματι 


Ε 
ἔσῃ πραΐῦς, ἔσῃ ἡσύχιος, ἔσῃ τρέμων 


, 
οὐ μὴ διψυχήσῃς 
οὐ μὴ ἄρῃ: 
φόβον 
2 Ν 4 3 “ 
ov μὴ γένῃ ἐπιθυμῶν 
οὐδὲ κολληθήσῃ ἐκ ψυχῆς 
ἄνευ θεοῦ 
ἐστὶν ἡ διγλωσσία 
ὑποταγήσῃ κυρίοις 
3 Ἀπ Aves 
οὐ μὴ ἐπιτάξῃς 
μή ποτε οὐ φοβηθῶσι 
ὅτι ἦλθεν οὐ 
κοινωνήσεις ἐν πᾶσι 
ἀφθάρτῳ ... φθάρτοις 
ὅσον δύνασαι 
»» 2 LZ, e , 
καθ᾽ ἑκάστην ἡμέραν 
9 lA 9 - 
ἐργάσῃ εἰς λύτρον 
“4 Ν / 
γνώσῃ δὲ τίς 
εἰρηνεύσεις ... συναγαγών 
ἐξομολογήσῃ ἐπὶ ἁμαρτίᾳ σου 
ὡς .« ͵ 
οὐ προσήξεις 
ch. 20. εἰδωλολατρεία, ὑπόκρισις, 
[4 lg ε , 4 
μοιχεία, φόνος, ἁρπαγή; φαρμακεία, 
μανεία 
~~ A 9 aw 
διῶκται τῶν ἀγαθῶν 
οὐ κρίσει 


Eh as , 
€7l TO TOVY pov 


TEACHING. 
μία... καὶ μία 
μεταξὺ τῶν δύο ὁδῶν 
ὃ μὴ ἀρεστόν 
ἐλέγξαι ἐπὶ παραπτώμασιν 


» \ A ,ὕ Chee 
ἴσθι δὲ pais ... γίνου ἡσύχιος « «+ 


καὶ τρέμων 
οὐ διψυχήσεις 
οὐκ ἀρεῖς 
τὸν φόβον 
οὐκ ἐπιθυμήσεις 
οὐ κολληθήσεται ἣ ψυχή 
ἄτερ θεοῦ 
ἡ διγλωσσία 
ὑποταγήσεσθε τοῖς κυρίοις 


3 9 ΄ἑ 
OUK επίταςεις 


Ἂς Υ 
οὐ μὴ φοβηθήσονται 
οὐ γὰρ ἔρχεται 
συγκοινωνήσεις πάντα 
3 4 a 
ἀθανάτῳ ... θνητοῖς 
9 Ν ἣν , 
ei μὲν γὰρ δύνασαι 
Δ. ᾿ς 
καθ᾽ ἡμέραν 
, ΄ 
δώσεις λύτρωσιν 
γνώσῃ γὰρ τίς ἐστιν 
εἰρηνεύσεις 
3 Ν ig 4 
ἐξ. TA παραπτώματά σου 
οὐ προσελεύσῃ 


Plural. 


~ 9 »“"ο 
διῶκται ἀγαθῶν 
ὑδὲ , 
οὐδὲ κρίσει 
εἷς τὸ πονηρόν 


814 THE VOCABULARY OF THE TEACHING [ Oct. 


The most of these differences are quite compatible with a memor- 
iter quotation of either by the writer of the other. Similar varia- 
tions are heard in the pulpit every Sunday in quoting the Bible. 
There is also nothing in them to indicate a different period of time 
in the writers. Are the differences consistent with the supposition 
that a copy was made with the manuscript before the writer? Cer- 
tainly not, unless a different text was followed, as is also shown by 
the difference of order. Is there anything thus far to show which 
is the original? The indications of working over into a new style 
are very slight. In one marked case the Teaching has the impera- 
tive, ἴσθι ..... γίνου, while the other has the Hebraistic future, ἔσῃ; 
this certainly cannot be called a change into the style of Barnabas. 
Four times Barnabas has οὐ μή with the aorist, where the Teaching 
has ov with the future. On the whole, considering only these verbal 
resemblances and differences, it seems to me that they show that 
the one writing did certainly come from the other, but without de- 
termining which. ‘To say that they came from some common source 
is an easy makeshift; but must not that common source have been 
substantially the one or the other? 

3. The differences that are more than merely verbal need not be 
here culled out and repeated, as they are obvious. Ido not see how 
one can read the two columns carefully without the strongest impres- 
sion that this part of the Epistle is derived from the Teaching. First, 
the Teaching is simpler, less figurative and ornate: ὁδὸς τῆς ζωῆς, 
τοῦ θανάτου instead of ὁδὸς τοῦ φωτὸς, τοῦ σκότους, τοῦ μέλανος ; 
πονηρά instead of σκολιά; μνησθήσῃ instead of ἀγαπήσεις ὡς κόρην 
τοῦ ὀφθαλμοῦ cov. Secondly, the Teaching is more closely biblical. 
The exact phraseology for the “two ways” is furnished by Jeremiah 
(xxi. 8), and is not far from Matt. vii. 18, 14; and a large part of 
chap. i. is from the Sermon on the Mount. Thirdly, the Epistle 
has the appearance of an amplification of the Teaching. The “two 
ways” of the latter become two ways διδαχῆς καὶ ἐξουσίας, and the 
difference between them is illustrated by the guardian angels set 
over each. The simple διδαχὴ becomes ἡ δοθεῖσα ἡμῖν γνῶσις τοῦ 
περιπατεῖν. Not satisfied with ἀγαπήσεις τόν σε ποιήσαντα, Barnabas 
adds φοβηθήσῃ τόν σε πλάσαντα, δοξάσεις τόν σε λυτρωσάμενον ἐκ 
θανάτου. Other examples follow. Even the οὐ μὴ λάβῃς ἐπὶ 
ματαίῳ τὸ ὄνομα κυρίου seems like a translation of ἐπιορκήσεις (derived 
from Matt. v. 33, and found only there in the New Testament, and 
but twice in the Old) into the language of the Decalogue. It is 


1884. OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES. 816 


΄ 


true that some passages in the Teaching are fuller than in Barnabas. 
The list of sins in chap. 26. of the iatter contains only two not in the 
Teaching, while the Teaching has seven not in Barnabas. Where 
Barnabas has pais, ἡσύχιος, τρέμων, the ‘Teaching has besides 
μακρόθυμος, ἐλεήμων, ἄκακος, ἀγαθός. But a fuller enumeration is a 
very different thing from an intentional amplification; and in no 
case, I think, in which the Teaching is fuller is there the appearance 
of a comment upon the Epistle or a confirmation of it. The quota- 
tion from Matt. v. 5, that “the meek shall inherit the earth,” is in 
harmony with the other quotations from the Sermon on the Mount, 
and is plainly due simply to the word pais. This case suggests 
the one feature in these chapters of the Epistle which favors their 
priority to the Teaching — they seem to ignore the Sermon on the 
Mount. Ifthey were written after the Teaching, why should they 
avoid the quotations from the Sermon? Further, if they were 
written before the Teaching, why not before the Sermon on the 
Mount? and what is there then left to show that they are not an 
ante-Christian writing incorporated into the Epistle ἢ 1 

4. This comparison of the Teaching with certain chapters of 
the Epistle of Barnabas leaves out of view the late words considered 
in the first part of this article. If the first five chapters of the © 
Teaching are earlier than Barnabas, then those late words belong 
either to a large addition to the first five chapters or to short inter- 
polations.. The word σιτίαν might have been substituted for ἄρτους 
or ἄρτους θερμούς by a copyist, without the change of another word. 
The word χριστέμπορος might have been introduced without neces- 
sarily carrying with it more than its own sentence. Even if the 
first five chapters are later than Barnabas, they cannot, for various 
reasons, be put at a date that will satisfy these late words. The 
same appears to be true of the remaining chapters. Perhaps the 
strongest point against the genuineness of χριστέμπορος is that so 
striking a word is ignored, together with its immediate context, by 
the Apostolical Constitutions. -Cannot~someceader-of-the-Greek 
Tathers- tellus whether-or not. Gregory Nazianzen-coined..the.word-? 

5, It may seem superfluous to speak of forgery, when it has not 
been seriously charged. Indeed, it may be asked, How can an 


1 A most tantalizing Latin fragment, published in Harnack’s Prolegomena, 
seems to combine, in the opening sentences, the Teaching with the Epistle. 
Does this prove that there were widely varying texts of the Teaching, or that 
some writer had confused it with the Epistle 1 


816  ΤῊΕΒ VOCABULARY OF THE TEACHING. [Oct. 


anonymous writing be the subject of forgery? ‘The answer is, that 
the silent claim of a certain age to authorship ean be simulated as 
well as the handwriting of a man. On the supposition that the 
Teaching is prior to the Epistle of Barnabas, I have already said 
that a forger would have produced closer resemblances to New Tes- 
tament diction. But how about a more modern, scientific, and 
scholarly forgery? Is not the Teaching a “cunningly devised” 
prototype, drawn from the Epitome and the Apostolical Constitu- 
tions? We may answer, first, that a forger would hardly have left 
its relation to the Epistle of Barnabas in so much doubt ;. or perhaps 
I should say, that the existence of that Epistle, with its variations 
from the Epitome and the Apostolical Constitutions, would have 
successfully baffled the efforts of a forger. But secondly, suppose 
this difficulty in some way removed, we should expect the Teaching, 
if it be a fabrication, to be more closely conformed to its sources. 
In the first chapter more than one quarter, mostly at the close, will 
be searched for in vain in the three parallel writings.! No modern 


1 Even if we add Hermas to these three, the illustration of the argument still 
holds, since the variations from Hermas, at the close of chap. i., are considerable. 
The following are the portions of Hermas bearing the closest resemblance (Second 
Commandment. Bry. Proleg., p. 89): Πᾶσι yap ὁ Θεὸς δίδοσθαι θέλει ex τῶν ἰδίων" 
δωρημάτων. Οἱ οὖν λαμβάνοντες ἀποδώσουσι λόγον τῷ Θεῷ διὰ τί ἔλαβον καὶ εἰς τί" 
of μὲν yap χαμβάνοντες θλιβόμενοι οὐ δικασθήσονται, οἱ δὲ ἐν ὑποκρίσει χαμβάνοντες. 


,, τίσουσι δίκην. ὋὉ οὖν διδοὺς ἀθῷός ἐστιν. In the Independent of July 3, p. 9, Prof. 


Orris suggests that the close of chap. i., may have been added, or modified, at a. 
later date ; and finds evidence of this in the words, δώσει δίκην ἱνατί ἔλαβε καὶ. 
eis τί. One can readily agree with him (and thank him for proving it) that 
δώσει δίκην should not be rendered ‘‘ shall give account”; but why not give the: 
usual rendering, “shall pay the penalty,” ‘shall suffer for 10 1 The connec- 
tion with ἱνατί, etc., would be harsh, but perfectly intelligible, for the idea of 
giving account, or of being detected, would naturally be supplied. The usual. 
meaning of δώσει δίκην is the proper antithesis of ἀθῷος ἔσται, just preceding, 
as the reader will plainly see by stopping at δίκην. The next five words have. 
close connection logically with what follows referring to the mode of trial and 
punishment. In Hermas τίσουσι δίκην (cf. 2. Thess. i. 9) takes the place of δώσει. 
δίκην, and is affirmed of those who receive alms hypocritically.. This writing 
and the Teaching are at one in leaving the responsibility with the receiver and 
not the giver. Hence one feels bound to interpret the figurative language — 
“Let thine alms sweat,” ete. —in harmony with this. The lines containing 
δώσει δίκην may be read thus: “ Blessed is he that gives according to the com- 
mandment, for he is guiltless [even if the gift be found to be a mistake]. Woe 
to him that takes [if the gift is not needed, or is misused] ; for, while the 
receiver, if needy, is guiltless, the one who is not needy shall pay the penalty 
[for it will be found out] why he took alms, and for what use he intended! 


1884. ] CURRENT PERIODICAL LITERATURE. 817 


forger would have left this so. This is well illustrated by Dr. 
Krawutzky’s attempted restoration,/ referred to in Professors Hitch- 
cock and Brown’s Introduction. The matter of it—the Two Ways 
—is found in the first five chapters of the Teaching. Although the 
restoration appears only in a German translation, its wonderful skill 
is apparent. But it is the skill of omission. Not a word is added 
to the Epitome so far as that is followed, or to the Apostolical 
Constitutions where the Epitome fails. 

In conclusion, some of the points raised in this article cannot, of 
course, be settled by the mere examination of the vocabulary. I do 
not press them; for my object has been simply to help in preparing 
material for a final decision. 


it; and when he is brought to trial [or prison] he will be closely examined 
concerning his conduct, and will not come out until he has paid back the last 
farthing.” I see no way out of the ‘‘sweat” and toil of the next sentence but 
by supposing that the ἱδρωτάτω of the Ms. is for fepwrdrn, sacrosancta. 


1 Theologische Quartalschrift, Tiibingen. 1882. Drittes Quartalheft. pp. 
433-445. 


Pre be Have tried he ΝΕ the run of the discus- | _Nashotah. We should have expected Jupisco- 
sions of the “Teaching.” We note, very lately, | | pal scholars to be the first to take up the subject; | 
_a discussion of the treatise before the Society of | bas Phere sect ube last The-preseat satel 
Theology in Paris. Prof. Bonet-Maury read 38 by Professor Richey, of the General Theolog- 
| a long paper, in which he adopted the conclu- ical Seminary in this city. It gives no discussion 

| sions of Hilgenfeld, who assigns the latest possi-_ whatever of the acer mens itself, bus onl ae 
ble date, putting the first and earliest part of it, scribes the kindred treatises, the various ‘‘ Con- 
about the Two Ways, as lateas A.D, 140, with Stitutions,” and the “ Judgment of Peter,” and 
subsequent additions, largely Montanistic, which then concludes, from the testimony of Atna- 
come down to the close of the second century. nasius, etc., that it is uncanonical and of no 
' These views were combated by Professors binding authority on faith. Of course that is 
_ Massebieau, Sabatier and Ménégoz, all of whom true. No human being questions it. The real 
‘marshaled the evidence that it must mount back 4Uestion is notas to its canonical but as to its his- 
+o a much earlier time. They agreed that it torical authority and value; and on that subject 
must be older than the Epistle of Barnabas Professor Richey gives us not a bit of light. He 
and was composed before the end of the first is content to disparage the work as not Scrip- 
eentury. In The Church Eclectic for July, ture, and apparently leave it to be concluded | 
πὸ find the first discussion of the subject that, therefore, it has no other value. That was | 
“by an American Episcopalian, if we ex- the argument of Omar when he burned the 
cept the letters of Professor Adams, of | Alexandrian Library. . 


The ferlet Q< ἢ Veco VP 1 CFE Ἐ 


ART. V.—The Teaching of th Apostles. cy | ἘΠῚ 


¥ 


FA 


(1 ) Διδαχὴ τῶν δώδεκα ἀποστόλων ἐκ TOV Ἱεροσολομιτικῦυ χειρογράφου νῦν 
πρῶτον ἐκδιδομἔνη μετὰ προλεγομένων καὶ σημειώσεων ὑπὸ PIAOOHOY 
ΒΡΥΒΝΝΙΟΎ, μητροπολίτου Νικομηδειᾶὰς. Ev ονστάντινουπόλει. 
πύποις Σ. I, Ἐουτύρα. 1889. 


(2) Doctrina XTT. Apostolorum. Edidit et adnotationibus illus- 
travit. ADOLPHUS HILGENFELD. (Novum Testamentum 
Extra Canonem Receptum.) Fasciculus IV. Lipsiz: T. O. 
Weigel. 1884. . 

(3) Zexteund Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der Altchristlichen 
Literatur. Von OSCAR VON GEBHART und ADOLF HARNACK. 
II. Band. Leipzig: Heinrichs. 1884. 

(4) Lehre der Zwolf Apostel. Von WUNSCHE. Leipzig. 1884. 

(5) The Official Report of the Church Congress at Carlisle, 1884. 
Bemrose, London and Derby. 

(6) The Expositor. May, August, 1884. 

(7) The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles. With Introduction, 
Translations, Notes, and Illustrative Passages. Edited 
by H. DE Romestin. Oxford ΠΑ ον too 47 

(8) The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles. A Translation, with 
Notes and Excursus, by Canon SpENCE, Vicar of St. 
Pancras. Nisbet. 1885. 


TEN years since the learned world was startled by the new of 
the discovery of a Greek Codex in the library of the Holy 
Sepulchre attached to the official residence of the Patriarch 


334 The Teaching of the Apostles. 


of Jerusalem at Phanar in the city of Constantinople, con- 
taining, among other ecclesiastical documents, the entire 
Greek text of the two Epistles of Clement, including the long 
missing portions of the recovery of which had been given up as 
hopeless. The Codex was of no great antiquity. It was 
written in cursive characters by one Leo, who describes him- 
self as ‘a notary anda sinner,’ and was finished by him, as 
stated in the colophon, on the 11th of June, A.M. 6564, cor- 
responding to A.D. 1056, just ten years before the Norman 
Conquest. But though late in actual execution, this precious 
volume so unexpectedly brought-to light contained documents 
of the most primitive antiquity. Attention was at first almost 
exclusively directed to the Epistles of Clement. But the 
interest of the Codex did not end there. Besides the Epistle 
of Barnabas, and the Epistles of Ignatius, apparently of the 
longer recension, it was found to contain a work entitled “The 
Teaching of the Twelve Apostles.’ The title was not unknown 
to scholars. A book under this name was mentioned by 
Eusebius and Athanasius among early apocryphal writings 
accepted by the Church, and appeared in some catalogues of 
Scripture. The hope was naturally awakened that this might 
be that long lost work. But for a considerable period scholars 
were left in suspense as to its real character. ‘What may be 
the value of the Doctrina Duodecim Apostolorum,’ wrote Bishop 
Lightfoot in 1877,* ‘remains to be seen.’ At length, at the 
close of the year before last, 1883, the treatise was published, 
and the same sound and cautious scholar now pronounces that 
‘its interest and importance have far exceeded our highest 
expectations.’ t It proves to be a document the composition 
of which may be assigned to the closing years of the first 
century, or at latest to the earlier part of the second century 
(the older date being regarded by the soundest scholars as 
the more probable), of the genuineness and authenticity of 
which there cannot be the slightest doubt, and throwing a 
light as unexpected as it is indisputable on the ritual, organi- 
zation, and religious life of the infant Church. It may be 
safely pronounced the most remarkable discovery in eccle- 
siastical literature in recent times. This discovery is due to 
the present metropolitan of Nicomedia, previously metro- 
politan of Serrze, Philotheos Bryennios. This learned eccle- 
silastic had already become favourably known to western 
scholars at the old Catholic conference at Bonn in 1875. 
But few can have been fully prepared for the eminent gifts 


* Appendix to ‘S. Clement of Rome,’ p. 231. 
1 ‘ Report of Carlisle Church Congress, p. 230. 


The Editio Princeps. 335 


-displayed, first in his edition of Clement, and still more notably 
in that of the ‘Teaching.’ In these, especially the latter, we 
find an accurate scholarship, a familiarity with the whole 
domain of early ecclesiastical literature as wellas an acquaint- 
ance with the latest results of modern criticism, together 
with a sobriety of thought and a soundness of judgment which 
would do credit to the ripest scholar of the western world. 
In the words of the Bishop of Durham,* we may well regard 
it as ‘a most cheering sign of the revival of intellectual life 
in the Oriental Church when in this unexpected quarter an 
editor steps forward, furnished with all the appliances of 
western learning and claims recognition from educated Chris- 
tendom, as a citizen in the great commonwealth of litera- 
ture. Seldom indeed has an editio princeps appeared 
with so complete an ‘apparatus criticus,’ for which the 
whole domain of Early Christian literature has been ran- 
sacked, and its results arranged with a clear estimate of 
their bearing on the work under consideration. The οτί- 
ginal intention of Bryennios was, after the publication of 
the Epistles of Clement, to prepare a new edition of 
the Epistle of Barnabas. We can hardly be sorry that 
he: has not carried out this- purpose, and has devoted his 
-powers to the interpretation and illustration of the far more 
important and interesting ‘Teaching.’ Any regret we might 
have felt has been removed by his generous communication 
of the new readings of this Codex to Hilgenfeld, by whom they 
have been employed in his recent edition of that epistle,t which 
has thus supplied that ‘new authority for the Greek of Barna- 
bas,’ which Bishop Lightfoot has said would be ‘a great gain.’ 
Bryennios’ editio princeps of the ‘Teaching’ issued from the 
press of 5. E. Butyra at Constantinople, towards the end 
of 1883, in a form and style of which no western printing-office 
would be ashamed. This has been followed in rapid suc- 
cession by several German editions. We may specially 
mention those of Hilgenfeld,f and of Gebhardt and Harnack,$ 
both with learned prolegomena and annotations, and the 
latter enriched with dissertations on the chief points of 
interest supplied by the treatise. Wiinsche has also given 


* ¢S. Clement,’ Appendix, p. 231. 

+ ‘ Barnabze Epistolze,’ edidit Adolph Hilgenfeld. Lipsia, 1877. This 
edition is appropriately dedicated by the ‘gratissimus editor,’ to Bryennios, 
‘Orientalis Ecclesize splendido lumini.’ The new readings have also heen 
employed by Gebhardt and Harnack in their edition of the ‘ Patres Apos- 
tolici.’ Leipzig, 1878. 

{ ‘Novum Testamentum extra Canonem.’ Fasciculus IV. Lipsiz, 1884. 

δ ‘ Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der Altchristlichen Litera: 
tur.’ Leipzig, 1884. 


336 The Teaching of the Apostles. 


us a very convenient and moderately priced edition, with an 
excellent German translation and brief notes.* The credit 
of the first introduction of this precious ecclesiastical ἕρμαιον 
to the English public must be assigned to Canon Wordsworth, 
Oriel Professor at Oxford, who, under the initials J. W., con- 
tributed an article to ‘The Guardian’ newspaper of March 
roth of last year, describing the nature and characteristics of 
the newly published treatise, and detailing the chief points 
on which it supplied information concerning the early 
Church, and pronouncing it to be a genuine work of ‘the 
last years of the first century or the beginning of the second. 
Though in some points the learned author may have seen 
cause subsequently to modify his conclusions, what has since 
been written has substantially added but little to the informa- 
tion supplied by this very remarkable article. Other letters 
to the same journal have contributed to the elucidation and 
intelligent estimate of this treatise. We may especially in- 
stance that of Dr. Sadler (June 4th), and that with the initials 
E. L. H.t (June 25th), which after Prof. Wordsworth’s letter 
certainly exhibits the most scholarlike treatment of the work it 
has hitherto received inEngland. ‘Translations of the ‘ Teach- 
ing’ have appeared in ‘ The Contemporary Review’ for May by 
Archdeacon Farrar, and in “The Foreign Church Chronicle’ 
for June, 1884, by Canon Meyrick. The Archdeacon of West- 
minster has also contributed to ‘The Expositor’ for May of 
last year a popular account of the treatise itself, and in the 
part of the same periodical for August has discussed its 
bearings on the canon of Scripture. The only complete editions 
of the work hitherto published in England are the very handy 
and careful little book by the Rev. H. de Romestin, which in 
a small compass contains all that is necessary to explain 
and illustrate the ‘Teaching,’{ and the more elaborate and 
outwardly attractive volume by Canon Spence, Vicar of St. 
Pancras.§ Both of these editions supply the Greek text, an 
English translation, notes, and illustrations. Of the two 
editions, Mr. de Romestin’s is the more scholarly, Canon 
Spence’s the more popular. ‘The one is intended for the use of 
the student, the other for the general reader, for whose behoof 
also the Canon appends a sermon entitled, ‘The Old Paths,’ 
preachedin St. Paul’s cathedral on Sunday evening, June 22, 


* “Lehre der ZwOlf Apostel.’ Leipzig, 1884. 

+ It is an open secret that the writer of this letter is the Rev. Edward Lee 
Hicks, Rector of Fenny Compton, late Fellow and Tutor of SIDS: Christi 
College, Oxford. 

1 Parker and Co. 1884. 

S Nisbet and Co. 1885. 


The Bishop of Durham's Paper. : 337 


1884, in which he sets forth the main character of the treatise, 
and with happy power of adaptation, shows its applicability 
to the men and women of London at the present day. ‘The 
sermon is one which it must have been interesting to listen 
to, and which it is pleasant and instructive to read. 

But the most important contribution to our knowledge of 
the ‘Teaching’ and our estimate of its value is the paper 
read by the late Bishop of Durham at the Church Congress held 
at Carlisle last October, and published in the recently issued 
report.* We shall have so frequently to refer to this paper 
in the course of our article that we will content ourselves 
now with saying that it stamps with the authority of one of 
the first scholars of Europe in the domain of ecclesiastical 
literature, the perfect genuineness of the document, the pro- 
bability of its very early date, and the confidence with which 
we may use it as an unbiassed witness regarding the canon 
of Scripture, the Christian ministry, the sacraments and 
ordinances of the Church, and Christian teaching in the age 
immediately subsequent to the apostles. May we venture 
to express the hope that in this short paper we have 
only an instalment of Bishop Lightfoot’s critical labours, 
and that we may before long have the satisfaction of 
welcoming an edition of the ‘Teaching,’ similar to that 
which he has given ’us of the Epistles of Clement, and has 
promised of those of Ignatius. Is it too much to ask that the 
powers of one who by common consent holds the first place 
among English scholars in this department of literature may 
be brought to bear upon the elucidation of the many interest- 
ing, not to say momentous, questions presented by a work 
belonging to the epoch with which he is so familiar ? 

But it is time that we should turn from editions of the 
Διδαχὴ τῶν ArootéAwy to the work itself. 

_The first point which presents itself for our consideration 
is its history. What do early Christian authorities tell us 
of it? What references to it do their works contain? These, 
it will be seen, are neither scanty nor unimportant. 

The earliest notice of the work is in the celebrated passage 
of Eusebius,t in which he sums up the somewhat desultory 
statements as to the canon of Scripture he had made in the 
previous chapters. Dividing the writings which laid claim 
to apostolic authority into three principal groups: the ‘ Ac- 

knowledged ’ (ὁμολογούμενο), the ‘Disputed’ (ἀντιλεγόμενο), 

* ‘ Official Report of the Carlisle Church Congress,’ pp. 230-232. Bemrose 
and Sons, London and Derby. 

Woesuseb., “H. FE.’ lib. iii. c. 25. 

NO, CLXII. 22 


338 The Teaching of the Apostles. 


and the ‘Heretical,’ he proceeds to subdivide the second 
group into two sections: the ‘Generally recognized’ (γνώριμοι 
τοῖς πολλοῖς), and the ‘Spurious’ (νόθο) understanding by the 
latter term books of whose genuineness and authenticity and 
of the apostolic standing of their authors, there was not 
satisfactory evidence. In this class, that of the ‘spurious,’ 
he ranks ‘the Acts of Paul, the so-called ‘“ Shepherd,” the 
“Revelation of Peter,” and, in addition to these, that which 
was current as the Epistle of Barnabas, and the so-called 
Teachings of the Apostlés, τῶν ἀποστόλων αἱ λεγόμεναι διδαχαί. ὃ 

The contrast which follows between these controverted 
books and heretical writings is of great importance in settling 
the position which the ‘Teaching’ occupied in the early 
Church.f Eusebius’ words prove that the book was not 
regarded by any as heretical—a conclusive refutation of those 
who would assign it a heterodox origin—or it would have been 
rejected as, to adopt his description, ‘in every way monstrous 
and impious.’ We see alsothat Eusebius regarded its style 
(ὁ τῆς φράσεως χαρακτήρ), aS in harmony with what he calls 
‘the apostolic tone’ (τὸ ἦθος τὸ ἀποστολικόνγ, and that the book 
was recognized in some sense as Scripture, and was in public 
use in some congregations of the Christian world. We thus 
gain from our earliest witness a high though not the highest 
position for our book. 

The next authority by whom the ‘Teaching’ is mentioned 
is Athanasius, some forty years later, in his thirty-ninth 
Festal Epistle belonging to the year 367 a.p. In this, when 
dealing with so-called ‘apocryphal writings,’ which he 
describes as the invention of heretics who affixed dates and 
names to these compositions according to their pleasure, ‘in 
order that bringing them forward as ancient they may thereby 
have a pretext for deceiving the guileless,’ he distin- 
guishes from such pernicious forgeries ‘that which is called 
the Teaching of the Apostles,’ and groups it with the Shep- 
herd of Hermas, the apocryphal books of Wisdom and 
Ecclesiasticus, Esther, Judith and Tobit, as writings ‘excluded 
from the canon, but authorized by the Fathers as worthy of 
being read by recent converts to the faith desirous of being 
instructed in the word of godliness.’{ This passage affords 
an additional proof that in the fourth century the ‘Teaching’ 
was well known in the Church, though it was not, like the 


* Euseb., Hist. Eccl. iii. 25. 
+ Harnack, ‘ Texte und Untersuchungen,’ p, 6. 
{ Athanas., ‘ Epist. Fest.’ xxxix. 


- 


The Stichometria of Nicephorus. 339 


Shepherd of Hermas, used for public reading in the congre- 
gation, but by long-standing custom had been allowed for the 
training of catechumens—to adopt Jerome’s words borrowed 
in the Sixth Article of the Church of England,—‘ for example 
of life and instruction of manners.’ The marked distinction 
he also draws between this book and those he groups with it, 
and the heretical writings against which it is his object to 
warn his readers, is another convincing proof of its recognized 
orthodoxy.* 

We have to pass over several centuries before we again 
meet with any reference to the ‘Teaching’ in a catalogue of 
canonical and apocryphal Scripture. Its absence from these 
catalogues both Eastern and Western seems to prove that the 
book had obtained but little currency, and had gradually 
dropped out of knowledge. There is a possible reference 
to it in its adulterated form as one of the ‘holy books worthy 
of reverence’ received by the Church, in the seventy-sixth 
of the so-called Apostolical Canons under the title ‘The Con- 
stitutions given to the Bishops by Clement,’ but we find no 
certain mention of it before the ‘Stichometria’ of Nicephorus, 
patriarch of Constantinople a.p. 828. This is a Catalogue 
of the Canonical Books of Holy Scripture generally re- 
cognized by the Church,{ giving in each case the number 
of lines, στίχοι, occupied in the Codex. From this latter 
circumstance it takes its name, ‘Stichometria.’ In the 
list of the New Testament books he first enumerates the 
twenty-six universally recognized books, then the ‘ antilego- 
mena ’—a class comprising only the Apocalypse of John, that 
of Peter, the Epistle of Barnabas, and the Gospel according 
to the Hebrews—and concludes with the ‘apocryphal’ books. 
This class includes the Journeyings of Peter, of John, 
and of Thomas, the Gospel according to Thomds, the two 
Epistles of Clement, the Epistles of Ignatius and Polycarp, 
the Shepherd of Hermas, and, occupying the fifth place, 


* Canon Churton, in a letter to ‘The Guardian,’ stigmatizes it as ‘ dis- 
tinctly anti-Pauline and heretical,’ pervaded by a ‘Sadducean tendency,’ and 
says that in ‘evading the doctrine of the Cross’ ‘ it corresponds exactly to the 
teaching which might be expected from the false apostles and deceitful workers 
who transformed themselves into apostles of Christ.’ With calmer judgment 
Prebendary Sadler writes in the same paper, ‘This treatise must be either 
ante-Pauline or anti-Pauline. I would earnestly hope the former, for the writer 
must have been a very pious, God-fearing man, having an earnest zeal of 
God, though certainly not according to the knowledge of God and Christ set 
forth in the writings of SS. Peter, Paul, and John’ June 4, 1884). 

+ Credner, ‘Zur Gesch. d. Kana,’ pp. 119 ff. Westcott, ‘Canon of New 
Test.’ p.576. ‘Corpus. Script. Hist. Byzant.’ tom. i. Bonn, 1829. 

1 Ὅσαι εἰσὶ Θεῖαι γραφαὶ ἐκκλησιαζόμεναι καὶ Kexavoviopévat, καὶ ἡ τούτων 
στιχομετρία, ; 


340 The Teaching of the Apostles. 


between the Gospel of Thomas and the Epistles of Clement, 
the Διδαχή ἀποστόλων. The number of lines assigned to 
it, 200 (στίχοι o’), corresponds so nearly with that of the 
recently discovered Codex (203 according to Bryennios’ 
enumeration) that the identity of the two is placed beyond 
all doubt.* We should again notice that there is no hint 
of the heretical character of the book. Of much _ inferior 
value, but not without importance, is the mention of the Adaya? 
τῶν ἀποστόλων (the plural being used as in Eusebius instead 
of the more customary singular) in a Catalogue of Holy 
Scripture appended to a work of Anastasius Sinaita, the 
patriarch of Antioch (died 599 A.p.) This catalogue enu- 
merates sixty canonical books, nine deutero-canonical, and 
twenty-five apocryphal. In the last class, between the 
Apocalypse of Peter and the Epistle of Barnabas, we find 
‘The Journeyings and Teachings of the Apostles.’ The 
vagueness seems to show that these books were only known 
to the compiler of the catalogue by name, and were no longer 
current. The spurious ‘Synopsis of the Old and New Testa- 
ment,’ which bears the name of Athanasius, ascribed by 
Credner to the tenth century, also contains the Avday4 
ἀποστόλων among the antilegomena of the New Testament. Ὁ 
Later authorities had lost all knowledge of the ‘ Teaching’ 
as an independent work, and usually identified it with the 
‘Constitutions.’ Zonaras, in the twelfth century, states that 
some regarded the Away as the same book as the Acardéeuc, 
the reading of which, as a book corrupted by heretics, had 
been prohibited by the Sixth Council, a.p. 680, while - 
Blastares, in the fourteenth century, goes a step further, 
and boldly states the identity of the two.[ It is evident 
that no copies of the original work were anywhere known 
to which reference could be made, or such a confusion 
would have been impossible, and the true connection of 
the two, the ‘Teaching’ and ‘the ‘Constitutions,’ in the 
seventh book of which the ‘Teaching’ is, so to say, im- 
bedded, with alterations and additions corresponding with 
the change of usage and ritual, would have been recognized. 
But it is not in the catalogues of the book of Holy Scripture 
alone that the early currency and authority of the ° Teach- 
ing’ are recognized. This may be gathered even more con- 


* The marked difference in length formed a difficulty which it was not easy to 
evade to those who were, previous to Bryennios’ discovery, disposed to iden- 
tify the Διδαχῆ of Nicephorus with Book VII. ofthe ‘Apostolical Constitutions’. 

+ Bryennios, κά, note 2; Harnack, w.s. p. 10, note 14; Credner, w.s. p. 248. 

1 Zonar. apud Coteler, ‘Patr. App.’ I, 193; Migne, ‘ Patrol.’ i. 552; Blas- 
tar. Coteler, p. 194; Migne,’ Ὁ 


The ‘ Teaching’ quoted by Clement. 341 


vincingly from the use made of it by early ecclesiastical 
writers. If we were able to accept unhesitatingly the genuine- 
ness of the Pfaffin fragments of Irenzus we should have a 
primitive authority of the highest value. At the opening 
of the celebrated passage,* in which the spiritual nature of the 
eucharistic sacrifice as opposed to a carnal sacrifice is declared, 
and the bread and cup are described as being the antitypes of 
the body and blood of Christ, there is a reference to the 
‘Second Ordinances of the Apostles’ (ταῖς δευτέραις τῶν 
ἀποστόλων διατάξεσ) introducing the quotation from Malachi 
i, 11, which we find in the same connection in the fourteenth 
chapter of the ‘Teaching.’ But if this reference is pre- 
carious, there is no question of the use of this book, or, 
perhaps it would be safer to say, of the oral formulary of 
which the ‘Teaching’ presents the earliest form, by Cle- 
ment of Alexandria. In the first book of the ‘Stromata,’t 
after quoting Proverbs xxi. 17 as ‘Scripture’ (ἐξεῖπεν ἡ γραφή) 
and John vii. 18 as the words of Christ (φησὶν ὁ κύριορ), 
he proceeds. to adduce as of equal authority a sentence which 
we find in the ‘Teaching’ (ch. ili. 5). When condemning 
those who appropriated the wisdom of the barbarians and 
boasted of it as their own, he proceeds, ‘such an one is 
said to be a thief by Scripture: for it says, “ My _ son, 
Demnotved liars ΤῸ ἃ lie leads τὸ theft.’ . The. lax. use 
of the word ‘Scripture,’ γραφή, not only in the uncanonical 
writings, of which James iv. 5 is an example (cf. Luke 
xl. 49), forbids us to press this reference too far. Irenzus 
(to give a single example), as noticed by Eusebius (‘H. 
E.’ v. 8), quotes Hermas as Scripture (‘ Adv. Heer.’ iv. 
20. 2), and in the ‘Teaching’ itself (ch. i. 6) an anonymous 
saying, the source of which is entirely unknown, is introduced 
by, ‘it hath been said,’ εἴρητα. But the form of Clement’s 
quotation is a sufficient evidence that the book was known 
and its authority recognized in the last decade of the second 
century. There are other less certain references to the 
phraseology of the ‘Teaching’ in Clement. The description 
of wine as ‘the blood of the Vine of David’{ recalls the 
remarkable phraseology of the Eucharistic prayer, “ We 
give thanks to Thee our Father for the Holy Vine of David, 
Thy servant’ (ch ix. 1), but we can hardly regard it as 
borrowed from it. The two more probably have a common 


* Trenzei opera. ed. Stieren, tom i. p. 854. Ed. W. Wigan Harvey, vol. 
li. p. 500 ; Hilgenfeld, ‘ Didascal. Apost. Antiq. Fragm.’ p. 78. 

+ Clem. Alexand. ‘Strom.’ I. 20, 100, p: 377. 

1 Οἶνον τὸ αἷμα τῆς ἀρπέλου τῆς Δαβὶδ eyxéac—‘ Quis Dives Salvetur,’ c. 29. 


342 The Teaching of the Apostles. 


source. Still less is his reference to the familar imagery of 
the ‘Two Ways’* to be pressed. Bryennios, the minuteness 
of whose research appears the more remarkable the more 
attentively his apparatus criticus 15 examined, adduces a 
passage from the late sixth century writer, ‘John of the 
Ladder’ (Joannes Climacos), which seems to indicate a recol- 
lection of the language of the ‘Teaching.’ It runs thus: ‘It 
is the part of the godly to give to him that asketh, and of the 
more godly even to him that asketh not: but from him that 
taketh away the goods not to ask them again, though you are 
well able to do so, perhaps belong only to those devoid of 
feeling and to solitaries.’+ When we compare this passage 
with that in the ‘Teaching :{ ‘If any man take away thy 
goods ask them not again, for neither art thou able; give to 
every one that asketh thee, and ask it not again,’ the em- 
ployment af the same words, though the turn of the thought 
is different, suggests that the passage in the ‘ Teaching’ was 
known to the writer, and that the sentence was running in his 
head. 

Turning from the East to the West, the utmost diligence of 
Bryennios has discovered no more than two passages from 
western writers indicating any acquaintance with the 
‘Teaching.’§ The fragment ‘De Aleatoribus,’ attributed at 
one time to Cyprian, combines two sentences from different ~ 
parts of the work in one quotation,|| as from the ‘ Teachings 
of the Apostles,’ ‘in Doctrinis Apostolorum.’ No other 
quotation or trace of any acquaintance with the text of the 
treatise is to be found in any other western writers. But 
Rufinus of Aquileia, republishing the Canon of Jerome, ἢ. 
410 A. D., among the books regarded, not as ‘canonical’ 
but ‘ecclesiastical,’ which were allowed to be read in 
church, but not used for the establishment of the faith, 
mentions the Shepherd of Hermas and another short book, 
libellus, known under alternative titles as the ‘Due Viz,’ or 
the ‘Judicium secundum Petrum.’ Jerome also enumerates 
‘Petri Judicium’* among the books erroneously attributed 
to St. Peter, in the first chapter of his ‘ De Viris Illustribus.’ 
We cannot reasonably question that the title ‘Duze Viz’ 
indicates, if not the actual work which has been so unex- 
pectedly disinterred, in the form in which we now possess it, 
yet certainly the original source of the earlier part of it, 
descriptive of the way of life and the way of death. The 


* Clem. Alex. trons ν. 5. 31. 

+ Migne, ‘ Pps Greec.’ Ixxxviii. p. 1029. 

oe OS Rr Oe § ‘ Teaching,’ c. iv. 14; xiv. 2. 
| Cyprian Op. Ed. Fell. Appendix, p. 32. 


The Probable Date. 343 


alternative title, “Judicium Petri,’ may be most probably ex- 
plained on the hypothesis of Harnack, that as in the ‘ Epitome’ 
and in the last book of the ‘ Apostolic Constitutions’ the various 
moral rules and ecclesiastical and ritual ordinances are ficti- 
tiously assigned to different members of the apostolic body, 
with the view of imparting a more definite authority to them, 
so, with as little warrant, the whole was in this case put into 
the mouth of Peter, the spokesman of the apostles, and pro- 
posed to the catechumens on his authority to give more weight 
to the code.* This will appear more natural when we bear in 
mind the close relation of Jerome, from whom Rufinus borrowed 
the title, with the Church of Rome and the chair of St. Peter. 

We pass now to the probable date of the ‘Teaching.’ Here, 
as Bishop Lightfoot has remarked, we are met with the pre- 
liminary difficulty that it does not carry its date on its face, 
and that we must have recourse to critical inferences to 
establish its age. The evidence, however, in favour of an 
early date is very strong. Bryennios, indeed, places it as 
late as A.D. 140-160, Harnack between 13% and 165 A.D. 
But we thing Bishop Lightfoot is nearer the mark in dating 
it with most English and some German critics somewhere 
between A.D. 80-110. The grounds of decision are almost 
_exclusively internal. The quotation from the ‘Teaching’ by 
Clement of Alexandria gives us a very valuable terminus ad 
guem, which absolutely forbids our placing it later than ἐς. 
200 A.D. The internal evidence warrants our dating it much 
earlier. It is impossible to read the document without being 
conscious of its primitive character in every part. The 
moral earnestness which breathes throughout it, and ‘the 
archaic simplicity, almost the childishness,’ to adopt Bishop 
Lightfoot’s words, both of its commands and _ its prohibi- 
tions, bespeak the infancy of achurch. To this we may add 
what Professor Wordsworth calls ‘a general quietness of tone 
as to Church questions.’ No writing can be more completely 
uncontroversial. There is absolutely no reference to dogmatic 
differences. All turns on purity of life and uprightness of 
conduct. The entire absence of distinctively Christian doc- 
trine, the want of any reference not only to the sacrfficial 
aspect of the death of Christ as an atonement for sin, 
but to the fact of His death at all; the complete silence 
as to the resurrection and the gift of the Holy Spirit or 


* Harnack acutely calls attention to the phrase τοῖς περὶ τὸν Πέτρον in 
the shorter Appendix to St. Mark, and οἱ περὶ Ilerpov in Ignatius ‘ Ad Smyrn.,’ 
3, 2, for the apostolic body, as an indication of the readiness with which the 
name of Peter alone might take the place of that of the Twelve. 


344 The Teaching of the Apostles. 


His renewing and sanctifying influences; the high moral 
tone without any mention of the grace of God by which alone 
the Church of Christ has learnt to believe that true morality is 
attainable by fallen man; in short, the unspiritual, undoc- 
trinal, undogmatic character, which has led some writers 
hastily to condemn it as an heretical book purposely evading 
the doctrine of the Cross, all point to an epoch of which the 
Epistle of St. James is the exponent, before the Pauline 
theology had penetrated, and, we may add, vivified the Church. 
It speaks of a time when the oral tradition of the words and 
works of Christ, on which the Synoptic Gospels were based, 
was the only representative of the present New Testament, 
and the Epistles of St. Paul and other apostles were slowly 
becoming known to and winning their way to a position of 
authority among the scattered congregations of the Christian 
Church. As Dr. Westcott has observed, ‘“ Those who had 
heard the living voice of apostles were unlikely to appeal to 
their written words.’* The words and phrases which recall 
the language of the Epistles are not to be regarded as quota- 
tions, but rather as an evidence that a new phraseology 
had sprung up which had become the common property of 
Christians, used by them unconsciously without reference to 
the passages in which, for us, the expressions have become 
stereotyped. Had the work been later the quotations could 
not fail to have been more copious and more exact. 

We are led to the same early date by the remarkable picture 
the ‘Teaching’ presents of the ritual and organization of the 
Church. Both are of the simplest character, such as we find 
in the Acts and Apostolic Epistles, and nowhere else, not even 
in the Apostolic Fathers. The apostles, prophets, and teachers 
of the primitive Church, as they are presented to us in Acts 
xill. 1, 1 Cor. ΧΙ, 28, Eph. iv. 11, and elsewhere, still form the 
recognized framework of the Christian ministry ; not, how- 
ever, connected with individual congregations, but itinerating. 
Of a localized episcopate, or of bishops as a separate order, 
there is nota hint. The localized ministry, existing side by 
side with this superior itinerating ministry, is of two orders 
only: The congregations are independent, self-governing bodies, 
ministered to by ‘presbyters,’ who are still called ‘bishops,’ 
as in Phil. i. 1 and. in the Pastoral Epistles, and by deacons. 
These ministers are appointed by the congregations them- 
selves. Nothing is said of ordination, though we must not 
make too much of the argumentum e silentio. The Church 
is still living in anticipation of the return of its Lord, ‘the 


* ‘History of the Canon,’ p. 55. 


Evidences of its Early Date. 345 


Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven,’ when its scat- 
tered congregation, dispersed like grains of wheat on the hills, 
should all be united in His kingdom, For this unknown day 
they will ever be on the watch as for their life, on their guard 
against the ‘world deceiver’ (κοσμοπλάνος), whose coming 
would inaugurate a period of fearful trial, before the advent 
of Christ. For them, as for those to whom St. James wrote, 
‘the coming of the Lord’ was drawing nigh, ‘the judge was 
standing before the door’ (Jas. v. 9), and the great event would 
not be long deferred. 

The same early period is also shown by the absence of all 
reference to the heretical tendencies which so soon began to 
affect the Church. The ‘ false prophets,’ against whom a 
warning is directed, are not described as heretics, or mis- 
believers, but inconsistent Christians, such as made a merchan- 
dize of their professed spiritual gifts, and whose lives were not 
in accordance with their teaching, men who sought to over- 
throw (καταλῦσαι, cf. Matt. v.17) the moral law as expounded 
by Christ. There is not the slightest reference to the Docetic 
and early Gnostic controversies, such as are to be found abund- 
antly the Ignatian Epistles. In this respect the ‘Teaching’ 1 
separated by a great gulf from the Epistles of St. John. Bryen- 
nios’ view that these warnings are specially aimed at the 
‘ Antitacte,’ an Antinomian sect who followed out the teaching 
of Carpocrates and the earlier Gnosties to their legitimate issue, 
has absolutely nothing to support it. The same may be said of 
the supposed reference to Montanism, also seen by Bryen- 
nios, and still more of the additions to the text in a Montan- 
istic interest which Hilgenfeld imagines he has discovered.* 
We see the tendencies which at a little later period devel- 
oped in these erroneous systems, but not the systems them- 
selves. The evil leaven was working but had not yet come to 
a head. 

Again, the Eucharist is not yet separated from the Agape. 
The expression, ‘after they have been filled,’ ‘ satisfied,’ 
μετὰ τὸ ἐμπλησθῆναι, when the writer is describing what 
follows the reception of the Eucharist, indicates a meal 
such as that described by St. Paul in the Corinthian Church 
(x Cor. xi. 17-34), where, at the most sacred of all religious 
rites, it was still possible for one of the communicants 
(to adopt modern phraseology) to be hungry and eat 
voraciously, and another to drink to excess.+ ‘The separation 
of the two, the Eucharist and the Agape,’ remarks Bishop 


* Hilgenfeld, 2. s., pp. 94, 104 ff. 
+ Harnack’s note is ‘ Also noch eine wirkliche Mahlzeit,’ and that of Hil- 
genfeld, ‘ Eucharistia vere cena communis, nondum separata ab agape.’ 


346 The Teaching of the Apostles. 


Lightfoot, ‘seems to have taken place about the time of the 
Bithynian persecution under Pliny, A.p. 112. In the age of 
Justin Martyr they are evidently distinct.’ The change from 
‘after they are filled’ into ‘after participation,’ pera ri 
μετάληψιν, in the corresponding passage of the ‘ Apostolical 
Constitutions’ indicates an alteration of usage, necessitating 
the alteration of phrase. 

As to the place of composition there is still less to guide us. 
There is not a single word or expression indicative of any one 
country more than another, while the absence of all local 
colour deprives us of what is sometimes a welcome aid. ‘The 
localities suggested are as various as the vagueness of the data 
allows. The permission to use warm water for the baptismal 
rite has been thought possibly to point to a cold climate. But 
such an induction is in the highest degree precarious. Pro- 
fessor Wordsworth ‘can only suggest vaguely some Church of 
Greece or Macedonia.’ ‘Corinth does not seem wholly 
impossible, or Athens, or even Philippi.’ With the last named 
Church the mention of ‘bishops and deacons’ as the resident 
ministry, as in Phil. i. 1, presents a slender thread of connec- 
tion, which must not however be strained. The judgment of 
the ablest scholars seems tending to Egypt as its birthplace. 
‘Our work,’ writes Bishop Lightfoot, ‘may with some proba- 
bility be assigned to Alexandria ; all its affinities are Alexan- 
drian.’ Harnack takes the same view, which is also that of 
Funk,* partly led to it by the absence in the ‘ Teaching’ of 
the word ‘kingdom’ in the doxology of the Lord’s Prayer, 
which also occurs in a Sahidic or Upper Egyptian version of 
the Gospels ¢ and its close connection with the Epistle of 
Barnabas. 

With regard to its author, there is much to lead us to the 
belief that he was a Jewish Christian of the milder and more 
conciliatory type, probably an Hellenist. Not a _ violent 
opponent of Jewish observances like the so-called Barnabas, 
but at the same time advocating a sharp distinction between 
Christian and Jews, as in the matter of the biweekly fast. 
These are not to be held, like those of ‘the hypocrites,’ on 
Monday and Thursday, but on Wednesday and Friday. ὦ 
Abstinence from forbidden meats is not to be rigidly enforced, 
but an allowance made for human weakness. Other indications 


* <Tibingen Quartalschrift.’ 1884, p. 382. 

t Tischendorf, ‘ Apparat. ad Matt.’ vi, 13: ‘quoniam tuum est robur et 
potentia in zevium evi.’ Westcott and Hort, vol. ii. App. p. 8: ὅτι σὸν ἐστὶν 
ἡ δύναμις Kai ἡ ἴσχυς εἰς τὼς αἰῶνας, (Cf. Greg. Nyssen, i, 761.) 

1 The first mention of the Wednesday an?@ Friday fast, after that in the 
‘ Teaching,’ in the Alexandrine Clement, ‘ Stromat.’ vii. 75. 


Similarity to the Epistle of St. James. 347 


of a Jewish training have been seen in the use of the phrase 
νυκτὸς καὶ ἡμέρας ---ἰῇς Jewish day beginning at nightfall, 
which the compiler of the ‘ Apostolical Constitutions ’ 
has instinctively changed into ἡμέρας καὶ voxréc;* perhaps 
in the command to pray three times a day ; in the title 
given to the settled prophets of ‘your high priests,’ (c. 
ΧΙ]. 3), which Hilgenfeld without sufficient reason regards 
as a Montanist addition, and by the directions concerning 
‘the first fruits of the press, and of the flour, of oxen and of 
sheep, of bread and of wine, of silver and of raiment, and of 
every possession,’ to be rendered to them in their high-priestly 
character, or, in their absence to the poor.f Slight as these 
indications may appear separately, collectively taken they 
tend to confirm the view adopted by Bishop Lightfoot, that it 
may have been the work of ‘some pious Jew.’ Canon 
Spence’s suggestion, that we may identify our author with 
Symeon the Lord’s kinsman, ‘the successor of James as 
bishop of the Jerusalem Church, then located at Pella,’ who 
‘addressed his children of the Pella Gentiles in this beautiful 
and practical manual of Christian life,’ or with ‘ one of his 
disciples possibly,’ is ingenious, but lacks all evidence and, 
we may add, probability. 

The religious position of our author is very much that of 
St. James in his Epistle. Moral duties are inculcated while 
faith is kept in the background, and the fruits of faith are 
more insisted on than faith itself. And clear reference to the 
Divinity of Christ is as absent from the * Teaching’ as it is 
from St. James. His miraculous conception is not hinted at. 
His equality with the father is only found in the baptismal 
formula, which is identical with that of St. Matthew xxvill. 19. 
Save 1 in the closing sentence Christ is not designated "Yue Θεοῦ 

‘the Son of God,’ but as in the addresses of. St. Peter in the 
first days of the Jerusalem Church, παῖς θοῦ the ‘servant of 
the Jehovah,’ of the Hebrew prophets. There is not the slightest 
reference to His miracles. His person and mediatorial work 
retire completely into the background, implicitly held but not 
explicitly enunciated, and Christ appears almost exclusively 
as the great moral Teacher, laying down the ways of life 
and of death. The personality and divinity of the Holy 
Spirit are ceremonially recognized in the baptismal formula, 


* The contrary collocation, ἡμέρας Te καὶ νυκτός in I Clem. ii., has led Hilgen- 
feld to the conclusion that the writer of the Epistle wasnot a Jew but a Gentile. 
Dr. Lightfoot pronounces ‘this argument more specious than sound.’ In the 
Apocrypha the order is always ‘ day and night,’ in St. Paul always ‘ night and 
day,’ while St. Luke in either order is used indifferently. 

+ Ov πᾶς for οὐδεὶς, ‘ Teaching,’ ii. 7, is another trace of Hebraistic style. 


348 The Teaching of the Aposttes. 


but as in St. James there is a complete silence respecting His 
work and influence, except in the province of prophetic inspi- 
ration. Besides this doctrinal resemblance there are other 
interesting points of correspondence between these two writings. 
One of these is the direction for public confession preceding 
prayer. ‘Thou shalt confess thy transgressions in the con- 
gregation, and shalt not come to thy prayer with an evil 
conscience ’ (° Teaching,’ iv. 14) ; ‘ Give thanks after confessing 
your trangressions that your sacrifices may be pure’ (ibid. 
xiv. 1), present a somewhat close parallel to James v. 16 ; 

‘Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another,’ 

An even more interesting correspondence 15 presented in the 
warning against double-mindedness or doubtfulness in prayer, 
διψυχία, found in both. ‘Thou shalt not be doubtful (οὐ 
διψυχήσεις) whether it shall be or not’ (‘ Teaching,’ iv. 4.) recalls 
at once St. James’ words, ‘let him ask in faith nothing 
doubting . . . .a double-minded man (ἀνὴρ δίψυχος) is unstable 
in all his ways’ (Jas. i. 6-8 ; cf. iv. 8).* 

Bryennios is singular in considering our treatise as ad- 
dressed to Jewish Christians. But its internal character 15 
in perfect agreement with the fuller title. ‘The teaching 
of the Lord, by the twelve Apostles to the Gentiles,’ the 
form of which was borrowed from Acts ii. 42. There is, how- 
ever, no attempt to represent the contents of the book as 
the direct teaching of the apostles, as has been done in 
most awkward fashion by the publishers of the ‘ Epitome 
of the Decisions of the Apostles,’ and of the “Apostolical 
Constitutions.” The document professes to be no more 
than an abstract of the teaching of Christ, as the apostles 
published it to the world. As well described by Harnack, 
‘the work is really, as its title asserts, a definite statement 
of the teaching which had Christ as its author, and which 
was given to Christians, as the ἐκκλησία, for their collective 
Christian and church life, as the author conceived it to have 
been published and communicated by the twelve apostles.’ 
“Tt is plain that the chief object of the author was to com- 


* The reference which from brevity of statement is left rather abscure in the 
‘ Teaching’ is made clear by comparison with other related passages. In 
Barnabas the passages are almost identical : ov μῇ διψυχήσῃς πότερον ἐσταὶ. ἢ οὗ 
(Barn. xix, 5), Hermas is more definite : Eav δίστάσης ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ σου οὐδὲν οὐ 
Len λήψῃ τῶν αἰτημάτων δου, οἱ γὰρ διστάζοντες εἰς τὸν θεὸν οὗτοι εἰσιν οἱ δΐψυχοι καὶ 
οὐδὲν ὅλως ἐπιτυγχάνουσι τῶν αἰτημάτῶν αὐτῶν (Herm. ‘ Mandat.’ viii.) The 
Kpistle to Heron of the Pseudo-Ignatius uses the word in the same reference : 
μῆ γίνου δίψυχος ἔν Tpocevyh cov ~ μακάριος yap ὁ μὴ διστάσας (Ep. ad Heron. c. 
7, ap. Bryenn. p. 20). We have a close similartiy of language but in a some- 
what different connection in Hermas. Vis. iv. ad fin : διὰ τοὺς διψύχους καὶ 
διαλογιζομένους ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις αὑτῶν εἰ, dpa ἔστι ταῦτα ἢ οὐκ ἔστιν. 


Character and Arrangement of the Book. 349 


bine the most important rules for Christian life—the διδάγ- 
ματα τοῦ Kvpiov—in a summary form, easy at once of compre- 
hension and retension in the memory, to be taught and learnt 
by all Christians ; a short and exhaustive directory by which 
Christians might ‘guide their whole life.’* 

But it is time that we should give some account of the 
book itself. It is by no means a lengthy document, extending, 
as we have seen, to about two hundred lines of an ordinary 
Greek codex, about the length of the Epistle to the Galatians. 
It is divided into sixteen chapters,t which may be grouped in 
two main divisions, the former part (cc. ivi.) containing 
commands and prohibitions relating to moral duties, entitled 
the ‘Way of Life,’ and the ‘Way of Death’ (the ‘Way of 
Light’ and the ‘ Way of Darkness’ of the Epistle of Barnabas), 
primarily adapted to catechumens ; the second part (cc. vil.— 
xvi.), adapted to an established Christian congregation, con- 
taining rules for the administration of the two sacraments, 
for fasting, prayer, public worship, and the organization of 
the ministry, concluding with an exhortation to watch for the 
second coming of Christ. ‘The fuller title, the ‘ Teaching of 
the Apostles to the Gentiles,’ belongs to the former portion 
only. This we may safely regard as a manual of instruction 
for catechumens, probably originally oral, representing the 
moral teaching of the Christian Church in its primitive 
apostolic form. We question whether it can be regarded as 
the original form of this manual. We are inclined rather to 
consider it as the earliest of the series of recensions of the 
document of the ‘Two Ways’ which, with interpolations and | 
additions of greater or less extent, we have long had—almost | 
without knowing it—in the second part of the Epistle of | 
Barnabas, the seventh book of the ‘ Apostolical Constitutions 
and in the work known under the various titles of the 
‘Epitome’of the Decisions of the Apostles,’ the ‘ Constitutions,’ 
delivered by Clement,’ the ‘ Ecclesiastical Canons of the Holy 
Apostles,’ and the ‘Duz Viz,’ or the ‘ Judicium Petri.’ 
A comparison of these works, which has been made very 
easy both by Bryennios and Mr. de Romestin, in his most 
convenient little edition, by the adoption of a different type 
for the parts where they are identical and where they diverge, 
renders it almost certain that all three are versions of 
the same original document, and that the ‘Teaching’ is 
the earliest. 

* Harnack, ‘ Texte und Untersuch.’ Bd. ii:, Heft 1, pp. 26, 30, 32. 


+ It does not appear whether these divisions occur in the MS., or have 
been added by the editor. 


350 The Teaching of the Apostles. 


The relative position of the ‘Teaching’ and the Epistle 
of Barnabas has been the subject of much discussion. ‘We 
have,’ says Dr. Lightfoot, “two sets of critics, each maintain- 
ing with equal confidence and with some show of reason, the 
one that Barnabas borrows from the “ Teaching,” the other 
that the “ Teaching” is indebted to Barnabas.’ The learned 
discover and first editor of the ‘Teaching’ maintains the 
latter hypothesis. Any conclusion of Bryennios demands 
the utmost respect. But we think that this is decisively nega- 
tived by a comparison of the language and structure of the 
two documents. Such a comparison has been elaborately 
made, paragraph by paragraph, almost sentence by sentence, 
by a writer in ‘The Guardian,* which conclusively shows 
the inferiority of Barnabas in clearness of thought, vigour of 
language, and lucidity of arrangement, in a manner fatal to 
the hypothesis of that Epistle having been the earlier. This 
writer upholds the indebtedness of Barnabas to the ‘Teach- 
ing.’ In this we cannot agree with him. As we have already 
indicated, we agree with the Bishop of Durham in thinking 
that ‘neither author plagiarizes from the other, but that both 
derive the matter they have in common from a third source.’ 
This may have been a kind of manual for catechumens, 
probably not committed to writing, but transmitted orally. 
From this both writers quoted from memory, adding, like 
“more modern writers in their quotations from Holy Scripture, 
what they thought would give greater emphasis to the words. 
‘Sometimes the sentences are repeated verbatim ; sometimes 
they are extended ; sometimes abridged; only very rarely do 
two sentences occur in the same order in each.’ May we not 
say that the Synoptical Gospels exhibit the same phenomena, 
to be explained in the same way? We have the same stock of 
common material, with the same improbability of any one 
having borrowed from either of the others. The Epistle of St. 
Jude, and the second chapter of the Second Epistle of St. Peter, 
may be regarded _ as presenting another example of the practice 
of early Christian writers, in presenting varied recensions of 
the same underlying document. 

It is important to observe that the correspondence between 
the two documents, with one exception (‘ Teaching,’ xvi. 
ἀεὶ - Barn says.) aeis confined to the four concluding chapters 
of Barnabas. These chapters are wanting in the old Latin 
translation, which closes at ch. 17, with the usual concluding 


* As Hicks], ‘ Guardian,’ June 25, 1884. Archdeacon Farrar says 
(Expositor, May, 1884, p. 386), ‘ Most readers of any literary insight or ex— 
perience will incline to the view that the simpler, less verbose, and less artifi- 
cial language of the ““ Teaching” must be the earlier of the two.’ 


Relations to Barnabas, Hermas, and the ‘ Epitome.’ 351 


formula, ‘Explicit Epistola Barnabe’—* Here endeth the 
Epistle of Barnabas.’ The difference in language and thought 
between these two portions of the document long since struck 
critics,* and suggested a difference of origin. A careful exa- 
mination of the whole subject leads irresistibly to the conclu- 
sion that these latter chapters formed no part of the original 
epistle, but are a separate recension of the ‘Two Ways,’ some- 
what clumsily tacked on by a later hand. 

Bryennios is also of opinion that the writer of the ‘ Teach- 
ing’ has borrowed from Hermas. There is, however, only a 
single passage (‘Mand.’ ii. 1, ‘ Teaching,’ 1. 5) where there is 
any identity of language, which may be explained, as else- 
where, by both writers having drawn from a common source. 

The case of the collection known as the ‘ Ecclesiastical 
Canons of the Holy Apostles,’ or the ‘Epitome of the Deci- 
sions of the Holy Apostles,’ sometimes called the ‘ Due Viz,’ 
placed by Bickell at the beginning of the third century, is 
different. There is little doubt that the ‘Way of Life’ much 
as we have it in the ‘ Teaching’ was the groundwork of the 
first portion of this curious work, elaborated by the adapter, 
with the interpolation of the names of the apostles to authen- 
ticate the decrees, James the Less and Matthias being 
omitted, and Cephas as well as Peter, and Nathanael as well 
as Bartholomew, being reckoned to make up the full number. 
A second part has been added dealing with the Sacraments 
and Church Organization. This portion manifests the date by 
the definite shape the Christian ministry has assumed. We 
have bishops, presbyters, readers, deacons, and widows, with 
the mode of the appointment and the qualifications of each, 
as well as the duties of the laity, both male and female. Quo- 
tations from the Pauline Epistles, which are wanting in the 
former part are copious here.t 

Passing to the ‘Teaching’ itself, the following is a brief 
analysis of its contents— 

Part I. Curistran Lire. (A) Zhe Way of Life (cc. i-iv.) 
and (B) The Way of Death (cc. v-vi.) 


* Vitringa, ‘Hypotyp. H.S.,’ p. 228 ; Le Moyne, ‘ Varia Sacra,’ vol. ii. p. 
929 ; Donaldson, ‘ Christian Literature,’ vol. i. p. 221. 

+ It is difficult to form any idea of the origin of the following extraordinary 
passage : ‘John said, *‘ Ye have forgotten, brethren, that when the Lord asked 
for the bread and the cup, and blessed them, saying, This is My body and 
blood, He did not permit them (women) to be associated with us.” Martha 
said: “‘ That was on account of Mary, because He saw her smiling.” Mary 
said, “1 did not laugh ; for He forewarned us when he was teaching that the 
weak should be saved by the strong.” ’ Hilgenfeld'may well say (zw. 5. p. 121): 
*“quee de Maria subridente tam mira sunt ut jam Pitra dubitaverit an prisca 
sint aut ex arbitrio conficta,’ ” 


352 The Teaching of the Apostles. 


(A) Zhe Way of Life. Perfect love to God (ce. v., vi.) and 
perfect love to man. (c.i.) 

An expansion of the great Second Commandment, as given 
in τ second table of the Decalogue, Commandments vi.—x. 
(c. il. 

A warning against all evil passions leading to the breach 
of the above commandments (c. iii.) 

Relative duties: to Christian ministers ; to Christians in 
general; to those at variance; to wrong-doers ; on receiving 
and giving; to those in want; to children; to slaves; to 
masters ; public confession of sins (c. iv.) 

(B) Zhe Way of Death. A catalogue of vices and sins, 
especially such as were prevalent among the heathen (c. v.) 

A warning against being led astray from the truth ; relaxa- 
tions of the full strictness of the law for those who were 
unequal to ‘the whole yoke of the Lord,’ with an absolute 
prohibition of meats offered to idols (c. vi.) 

Part II. (C) SacRAMENTs, RITUAL, AND (D) CHURCH ORGAN- 
IZATION. 

(C) Sacraments and Ritual (cc. vii.—x.) 

(az) Baptism (c. vii.) 

(ὁ) Fasting, (ὦ Prayer, (4) the Lord’s Prayer (c. viii.) 

(4) The Eucharist. The  eucharistical prayer before 
reception, and thanksgiving after reception. The prophets 
may be independent of set forms (cc. ix., x.) 

(D) Church Organization (cc. xi.-xv.) 

(f) Ordinances as to itinerating apostles and prophets. 
Rules for discerning the true from the false (c. xi.) 

(5) Ordinances as to the reception of lay Christian way- 
farers, and against those who seek to make a gain of the 
Christian profession. None are to live idle lives (c. xii.) 

(Z) True prophets and teachers, when settled in a Chris- 
tian community, are to be supported from the first fruits of all 
kinds (c. xiii.) 

(¢) Ordinances for public worship and the celebration of 
the Eucharist on the Lord’s Day. All disputes are to be pre- 
viously settled ‘ that the sacrifice may. not be defiled’ (c. xiv.) 

(4) The appointment of ‘bishops’ (presbyters) and ‘dea- 
cons.” The duty of mutual brotherly reproof. Wilful wrong- 
doers to be virtually excommunicated. The ‘Gospel’ is the 
rule of life (c. xv.) | 

Part III. THe Seconp Cominc or Curist. The duty of 
watchfulness for the unknown day; the evils of the last 
times ; the revelation of the ‘world deceiver ;’ the signs of 
the Lord’s coming; the coming itself; the world shall see 
Him (c. xvi.) 


The Two Ways. 353 


The first portion, containing the moral teaching, is at its 
commencement in close verbal correspondence with the Ser- 
mon on the Mount, but without strict accuracy of quotation. 
We notice also some singular divergences. ‘Pray for those 
that persecute you,’ is changed into ‘Fast for,’ &c. This 
mention of the vicarious use of fasting has a curious parallel 
in a quotation from the ‘Apostolical Constitutions’ given by 
Epiphanius: * ‘When they (the Jews) feast, do you fast and 
mourn for them.’ The precepts concerning bearing wrong 
meekly, derived from Matt. v. 39-41, close thus: ‘If any 
man take from thee that which is thine own, ask it not. again, 
for neither art thou able,’ the reason implied probably being 
that a Christian is bound by his profession to suffer wrong 
rather than use force or go to law to redress it (cf. 1 Cor. 
vi. 6-8). To our Lord’s words as to almsgiving, strong warn- 
ings are added against receiving alms when not really in need. 

Blessed is he that giveth according to the commandment, for he is guilt- 
less. Woe to him that receiveth, for if he receives anything, having need, he 
shall be guiltless. But he that hath no need shall give an account why he 
received it, and for what; and, being in distress [συνόχη, Luke xxi. 25, 2 


Cor. ii. 4], he shall be examined about what he hath done, and he shall not 
come out thence until he has paid the very last farthing. 


This is followed by a singularly worded caution as to indis- 
criminate almsgiving, introduced as one of the ‘faithful 
sayings,’ or ἄγραφα δόγματα, current in the early Church— 


Concerning this it has been said (εἴρηται), let thy alms sweat into thine 
hands until thou knowest to whom thou givest ; 


7.¢., keep your money in your hands until it grows hot there 
and makes them sweat. 

These precepts are followed by a series of prohibitions 
based on the commandments of the Second Table, including 
unnatural sins, magical rites and incantations, abortion and 
infanticide, and other specially heathen crimes. The section 
proceeds— 

Thou shalt not be of a double mind or of a double tongue, for duplicity of 


tongue isa snare of death. Thy speech shall not be false or empty, but 
filled with fact (μεμεστωμένος πράξεμ). 


And after warnings against covetousness, rapacity, hypochisy 
and other sins, closes with— 


Thou shalt hate no man, but some thou shalt rebuke, for some thou shalt 
pray, and some thou shalt love above thine own soul. 


* Epiphan. ‘ Heer.’ Ixx. 11; Hilgenfeld 2.5. Ὁ. 82. 
NO, CLXII. 23 


354 The Teaching of the Apostles. 


Precautions against that which may lead to sin (Bishop 
Andrewes’ ‘ Hedge of the Law’), follow in the next section, 
in which and the next the reader or hearer is addressed, as in 
‘Proverbs,’ as “ My son.’ 


My son, be not lustful, for lust leads to whoredom ; nor a filthy talker, 
nor lofty eyed,* for from all these spring adulteries. My son, be not an 
observer Of auguries, since it leads to idolatry ; nor one who practices charms, 
or astrology (μαθηματικός), or lustrations, nor be willing even to look at these 
things, for from all these springs idolatry.t My son, be not a liar, since a 
lie leads to theft.{ Neither be thou a lover of money, nor vainglorious, for 
from all these spring thefts. 


Then follow precepts regarding almsgiving ; the strict disci- 
pline of children is enforced, and the merciful treatment of 
slaves ‘who trust in the same God as their masters,’ while 
slaves are bidden to obey their masters, as “the image of 
God, in modesty and fear,’ and the “ Way of Life’ closes with 
the command to confess one’s sins in the public assembly, and 
not to come to pray with an evil conscience. Then follows the 
‘Way of Death,’ and this earlier portion closes with a section, 
exhibiting a sympathy with human weakness which recalls 
Christ’s words, ‘He that can receive it let him receive it’ 
(Matt. xix. 12), and St. Paul’s, ‘Let us, therefore, as many as 
be perfect be thus minded’ (Phil. iii. 15). 


If thou art able to bear the whole yoke of the Lord, thou shalt be perfect ; 
but if thou art not able, do what thou canst. With regard to meats, bear 
what thou canst. But be earnestly.on thy guard against meat sacrificed to 
idols, for that is the service of dead gods. 


With this section the ‘ Teaching of the Gentiles’ may be said 
to end. The next nine sections, probably originally a distinct 


* ὑψηλόφθαλμος, apparently a ‘ hapax legomenon,’ with which we may com- 
pare Prov. xxx. 13. In the Apostolic ‘Constitutions’ we have for it ῥεψόφ.- 
θαλμος, ‘ casting lewd eyes.’ We may compare 2 Pet. ii. 14. In the ‘ Tes, 
taments of the Twelve Patriarchs,’ as quoted by Bryennios (p. 14, note ὃ), 
we read οὐκ ἐπόρνευσα ἐν μετιεωρισμῶ ὀφθαλμῶν. 

+ The three words here used for dealers in unlawful arts, οἰωνοσκόπος, 
ἐπαοιδός, περικαθαίρων, may be illustrated from the LXX. (Lev. xix. 26): οὐκ 
οἰωνεῖσθε οὐδὲ ὀρνιθοσκοπήσεσθε͵ ver.31 : τοῖς ἐπαοιδοῖς οὔ προσκολλήσεσθε. Deut. 
xviii. 10, 11: οὐχ εὑρεθήσεται ἐν σοὶ περικαθάιρων τὸν υἱον αὑτοῦ... καὶ 
οἰωνιζόμενος, φαρμακὸς ἐπαείδων ἐπαοιδῆν. The word μαθηματικός does ποῖ 
occur in the ΤΙ ΧΧ. ; nor does it appear to be used in this meaning in classi- 
cal Greek. We may illustrate it from Latin writers: ‘ Nota mathematicis 
genesis tua,’ Juv. Sat. xiv. 248; see also vi. 564. Tacitus writes: ‘ Mathe- 
matici genus hominum potentibus infidum sperantibus fallax quod a civitate 
nostra et vetabitur semper et retinebitur,’ ‘ Hist.’ i. 27. Tertullian couples 
together ‘arioli, aruspices, mathematici,’ * Apolog.’ c. 43. 

{ This is the passage which, as already remarked, is quoted by Clement of 
Alexandria (‘ Strom.’ i. 20) as ‘ scripture,’ ° 


Laptism, Fasting, and Prayer. 355 


work containing the ordinances relating to the sacraments, wor- 
ship, and the organization of the ministry. No part of the treat- 
ise has attracted more attention or demands more careful 
and unprejudiced consideration. The picture it presents of the 
Church in subapostolic times is almost startling in the simpli- 
city of its framework and the bareness of its ritual, while it is 
invaluable in bringing before us what we find nowhere else, 
the arrangements of the ministry at the point of transition 
between the state of things described in the Acts and the 
Epistles, while the apostles were still living as the ultimate 
authority of doctrine and order, and that of which we find the 
commencement in the Ignatian Epistles, and the full develop- 
ment at the close of the second century. 

Baptism is to be received fasting, the baptizer and some 
others, probably the witnesses, fasting also. It is important 
to observe that the whole of the ordinances in these latter 
sections are couched in the second person plural, as to the 
Church at large, ‘ baptize ye, &c.,’with no hint at any distinction 
of orders. Baptism is to be preceded by instruction in the 
‘Two Ways’ and to be “into the name of the Father and of the 
Son and of the Holy Ghost.’ It is to be performed if possible 
in ‘living water,’ z.¢., water from a spring or running stream, 
otherwise any water will suffice. If cold water is unsafe—from 
weakness of health, or from the season of the year—warm 
water may be used. Immersion is the rule, but if the supply 
is scanty, triple affusion is sufficient. There is no reference 
to infant baptism, affording another proof of the early date 
of the rule, the only persons contemplated being adult 
converts. 

Fasting having been mentioned, the rule is laid down 
that the biweekly fast is not to be held on the same days as 
the hypocrites, the Jews—a memory and, we may add, a dis- 
tortion of our Lord’s words (Matt. vi. 16)—Monday, Thursday, 
but on Wednesday, the day of the Betrayal, and Friday 
(παρασκευή), that of the Crucifixion. 

In prayer also the converts are not to imitate the ‘hypo- 
crites,’ but three times a day to use that “commanded by the Lord 
in His, Gospel.’ The Lord’s Prayer is given exactly asit stands 
in St. Matthew vi. 9-13, except that the singular ‘ heaven ° 
(οὐρανῷ) stands for the plural "ἡ heavens ,(ovpavoic) ,and ‘ debt’ 
(ὀφειλήν) for ‘debts’ (ὀφειλήματα). The prayer closes with 
the doxology, affording a very early example of its use, with 
the omission of ‘ kingdom ’(faoreia).* The same occurs in 


* We find the doxology in the same form in Gregory Nyssen, i. 761, ὅτι 
αὐτῶ ἡ δύναμις καὶ ἡ δόξα ἅμα τῶ πατρὶ καὶ τῶ ἁγιώ πνεύματι,  Tischendorf : ἴῃ 
Matt. vi. 13. 


356 The Teaching of the Apostles. 


the doxologies to the Eucharistic prayers, in one of which 
‘glory’ precedes * power.’ 

Passing to the Eucharist ; assemblies for breaking of bread 
and giving thanks, are to be held on the ‘ Lord’s Day,’ κατὰ 
κυριακὴν κυρίου (c. xiv.), a condensed form of the more fully 
developed expression in the ‘Consitutions,’ the resurrection 
day of ‘the Lord, the ‘ Lord’s day,’ which carries us back in a 
very suggestive manner to St. John’s use of the word (Rev. i. 
10). Justin, it will be remembered, calls it “the day of the sun.’ 
There is no mention of any other service in connection with 
the Eucharist ; neither reading the scriptures, nor ministerial 
exhortations, nor lengthened public prayers, as described by 
Justin. None but the baptized are to partake. Before the 
Eucharistic service all offences are to be confessed publicly 
in the assembly, and breaches reconciled, in order that the 
sacrifice (θυσία) ταν be pure’ (c. xiv. 1., iv.14). No one who 
has a difference with another is to join the assembly until 
he is reconciled, ‘that the sacrifice may not be polluted.’ 
The Eucharistic prayers over the Cup precede that over the 
Bread; as in) Luke® xxi. 17; “and it Com το ine bread 
is broken and is thence designated κλάσμα. Although the 
rite is called a ‘sacrifice’ there is nothing in the language of 
the prayers to indicate that it was regarded as a sacrificial 
commemoration of the death of Christ, and of the benefits 
derived therefrom by the Church. Strange as it may seem, 
this central idea of the Eucharist is never once alluded to. 
The Eucharist appears only as a thankful recognition of 
God’s power and goodness in vouchsafing bodily and spiritual 
sustenance to his Church, and the ‘knowledge’ and ‘life’ 
and ‘faith’ and ‘immortality’ made known through ‘ Jesus 
Christ His servant’ (aidd¢ not viov, as inv Acts -ilsige 26): 
iv. 27, 30). The cup symbolizes the ‘ Vine of David’. The 
broken loaf( κλάσμα ) made up of many grains ‘once scattered 
upon the mountain and gathered together into one’ sym- 
bolizes the future unity of the church, to be ‘gathered from 
the ends of the earth,’ and ‘from the four winds,’ ‘into the 
kingdom He has prepared for her.’ If the celebrant, as we 
should now call him, was a prophet, he, like Justin Martyr’s 
uresident, προεστὼς, who might ‘send up thanksgivings to the 
btmost of his power,’ is not limited to the prescribed ritual, 
ut is allowed to give thanks at as great a length as he 
pleases, εὐχαριστεῖν boa θέλουσιν. 

The importance of these Eucharistic sections is so great 
in their bearing on the history of the Christian liturgy, that we 
shall not scruple to lay a translation of them before our readers. 


The Eucharist. 38) 


Ch. ix. Concerning the Eucharist, thus celebrate it (give thanks, 
εὐχαριστήσατε). First as regards the Cup. ‘ We give thanks to Thee, our 
Father, for the holy vine of David Thy servant, which Thou hast made 
knywn to us through Jesus Christ Thy servant ; to Thee be the glory for 
ever.’ And for the broken Bread (κλάσμα), ‘We thank Thee, our Father, 
for the life and knowledge which Thou hast made known to us through 
Jesus Thy servant. To Thee be the glory for ever. For as this broken 
Bread was scattered upon the mountains [in the act of sowing], and 
being brought together became one, so let Thy Church be gathered 
together from the ends of the earth* into Thy kingdom; for Thine is 
the glory and the power through Jesus Christ for ever and ever.’ But ler 
no one eat or drink of your Eucharist but the baptized into the name of 
the Lord, for concerning this the Lord hath said, ‘Give not that which is 
holy to the dogs.’ 

Ch. x, After you have been satisfied give thanks thus: ‘ We. thank 
Thee, Holy Father, for Thy holy name which Thou hast made to taber- 
nacle+ in our hearts, and for the knowledge and faith and immortality 
which Thou hast made known to us through Jesus Thy servant: to Thee 
be the glory for ever. Thou, O Almighty Lord (δέσποτα πανοκρατόρ), didst 
create all things for Thy name’s sake, and didst give food and drink to men 
for their enjoyment [Cf. 1 Tim. vi. 17, ‘God who giveth us richly all 
things to enjoy J, in order that they might give Thee thanks ; but to us Thou 
didst vouchsafe spiritual food and drink and eternal life through Thy 
servant. Before all things we thank Thee that Thou art mighty ; to Thee 
be the glory for ever. Kemember, Lord, Thy Church to deliver it from all 
evil, and to perfect it in Thy love,t and to gather it together from the four 
winds, the hallowed one, into Thy kingdom which Thou hast prepared for 
it ; for Thine is the power and the glory for ever and ever. Let grace come, 
and let this world pass away. Hosanna to the God of David.§ If any one 
is holy let him come ; if any one is not holy let him repent. Maranatha 
[the Lord cometh]. Amen.’ 


A return is made to the Eucharist in alater section, in which 
some additional regulations concerning it are given. 


Ch. xiv. On the Lord’s day of the Lord gather ye together and break 
bread, and give thanks (or ‘celebrate the Eucharist,’évyapiorgoare), having, 
in addition thereto, confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may 
be pure. But let no one who has a difference with his fellow join 
the assembly until they be reconciled,’ that your sacrifice may not be 
polluted. For thisis (the sacrifice) which was spoken of by the Lord, ‘In 


* ἀπὸ τὼν περάτων τὴς γῆς. This phrase is of frequent occurrence in the 
ancient liturgies, ¢. g., Litany of Constantinople, xv., Hammond, p. 118 f. 

+ Κατεσκήνωσας, This verb is only used intransitively in the New Testament, 
e.g., Matt. xiii. 32 ; Acts ii. 26 (as the simple verb σκηνόω, John i. 14) ; but in 
the LXX. we find the intransitive use not unfrequent, ¢. g., Psa. xxii. (xxiii.) 
2; Num. xiv. 30; Prov. viii. 12. Bryennios, usually so accurate, is in 
error when he says, κατασκηνοῦν yap τί που, ἢ ἔν τίνι, οὐχ εὕρηται. 
᾿ς 1 Τελείωσαι αὐτὴν ἐν τῇ ἀγάπῃσου. We have here, as in other places in these 
prayers, a likeness to Johannine language (cf. 1 John iv. 18). The previous 
clause reminds us of our Lord’s prayer (John xvii. 15). 

§ The reading of the MS. is θεῶ, altered by Bryennios into υἱῶ, to bring it 
into agreement with Matt. xxi. 9. See Harnack’s note zz doc. 


4 


358 The Teaching of the Apostles. 


every place and Time offer Me a pure sacrifice, for I am a great King, saith 
the Lord, and My name is wonderful among the nations.’ * 


This is the whole of the Eucharistic ritual presented to us by 
this, probably the oldest, liturgical document which has come 
down to us. 

However we may be disposed to account for it, it is certainly 
a very remarkable fact that this Eucharistic service contains 
no reference to that which Christians have ever regarded as the 
central idea of the rite according to our Lord’s own institution 
—the showing forth of His atoning death and the participation 
of the spiritual benefits of His broken Body and shed Blood. 
It would appear, indeed, that the words which all later 
Christians have regarded as the very essence of the celebra- 
tion— This is my Body,’ ‘This is My Blood ’—were not used 
at all ; that there was no mention ofthe institution of the rite 
by Christ, nor any allusion to the sacrificial efficacy of His 
death, still less to any repetition or representation of that 
sacrifice in the rite itself. It is true that the Eucharist is once 
spoken of as a sacrifice—‘that your sacrifice (θυσία) may be 
pure’ (ch. xiv. 1)—but it is evident from the whole context 
that, as in Clement,+ the word was borrowed from the ritual of 
the Old Testament, and employed in a figurative sense, as ‘a 
sacrifice of praise’ (Heb. xiii. 15) for temporal and spiritual 
blessings—‘food and drink for enjoyment,’ and ‘spiritual food 
and drink and eternal life,’ vouchsafed through Jesus Christ, 
not a sacrificial commemoration of His death ; and that it was 
offered by the whole congregation—‘ your sacrifice,—not by 
any individual minister acting as its representative or spokes- 
man. As Dean Howson has remarked: ‘There is no trace of 
any thought of participation except of a spiritual kind—no 
approach to that materialistic view of the subject which has, 
unhappily, become common among ourselves. On the contrary, 
the illumination of the mind, the quickening of the heart, are 
the points which throughout are made conspicuous.’ { 


* A combined quotation from memory from Malachi i. 11, 14 ; a passage 
which is constantly applied by early Christian writers to the Eucharistic 
sacrifice. The omission of incense (θυμίαμα), which Professor Wordsworth 
remarks, ‘ agrees with the general conclusion that its use was avoided in the 
early Church on account of its heathen association,’ has been supplied in the 
later ‘ Apostolical Constitutions.’ This is the passage referred to in the 
Pfaffian fragment of Irenzeus as occurring in the δεύτεραι τῶν ἀποστόλων 
διατάξεις, } 

+ Cf. Clem. Rom. Ep. i. c. 35: θυσία αἱνέσεως δοξάσει με. c. 52: θῦσον 
_ TO θεῶ θυσιάν αἰνέσεως, 

{ ‘ Notes on the Teaching of the Apostles,’ reprinted from ‘The Church- 
man,’ p. 8. pa 


The Problem presented by the Eucharistic Prayers. 389 


The Bishop of Durham draws attention to the ‘ desultory 
character’ of this document, especially ‘in the description 
of the Eucharistic service, which is plainly fragmentary,’ and 
cautions us how we ἡ draw inferences from its silence.’ But on 
some points the silence is most eloquent. Certainly no 
attempt can be more fruitless—though such an attempt has 
been made—than to deduce from these primitive Eucharistic 
formularies, probably the earliest existing Christian forms of 
prayer after the Lord’s Prayer, any support for later sacer- 
dotal or sacramental theories. Of such there is not the slight- 
est trace. . 

The very startling reticence of these devotions as to the death 
of Christ, and the participation in His Body and Blood, has 
been accounted for by Professor Wordsworth and others, by 
the hypothesis that such reference was purposely avoided to 
obviate “the well-known misrepresentations of outsiders,’ 
which distorted the words to support the calumny of ‘ Thyes- 
tean banquets’ so prevalent and so obstinate among their 
heathen neighbours. It has been thought possible also that 
the forms given in the ‘Teaching’ are not the liturgical 
prayers proper, such as would be used by the presiding 
minister, but rather the congregational forms to be joined in 
by the people (such as those to which Justin refers: ‘ We all 
send up prayers in common’); not ‘consecration prayers,’ but 
congregational thanksgivings to be learnt by heart for general 
use, which, to avoid possible scandals if they were divulged 
to those by whom they would be almost certainly misunder- 
stood, it was thought more prudent to couch in a lower key, 
without any mention of that Sacrifice which was in the memo- 
ries and the hearts of all. 

Another solution of the difficulty is that these are not ina 
proper sense, Eucharistic prayers at all; but belong to the 
Agape, with which the Eucharist was connected, being little 
more than what, in modern language, we might call ‘grace 
before and after meat.’ This idea receives some support 
from the close correspondence of its phraseology with that of 
a “grace before meat ’ for the use of virgins, found in a treatise 
at one time attributed to Athanasius.* But the whole con- 
text points to the Eucharistic feast as constituting the cha- 
racteristic service of the Christian Church ; nor is there any 
indication which would warrant our limiting the reference of 
these prayers to the Agape, for which, indeed, the tone is as 
much too high as it seems to us too low for the Eucharistic 
feast. 


* Pseudo-Athan., ‘De Virginitate,’ § 13. Migne, ‘Patrol. Grec.’ iv. 266. 


360 The Teaching of the Apostles. 


It must also not be overlooked that the hypothesis that 
these are merely congregational prayers does no more than 
remove the difficulty a little further. It can be but little less 
matter of surprise that the sacramental references we expect 
in devotions of this character should be absent from the 
prayers of the people than from those of the ministrant. 
“After all is said, and with every possible deduction, it cannot 
but remain a fact, deserving careful consideration, that the 
earliest Eucharistic formularies we possess should wear a 
character so entirely unlike that of all later Eucharistic 
formularies. This however is a powerful argument for its 
authenticity. The very unexpectedness of the character of 
this liturgy—if liturgy we can call it—is a strong proof of its 
genuineness, as well as that of the document in which it is 
preserved. Of that, as has been truly said by the Bishop of 
Durham— 


There can be no shadow of doubt; no one could or would have forged it. 
It serves no party interests. It pleases nobody. It is neither sacramenta- 
rian nor anti-sacramentarian, neither sacerdotal nor anti-sacerdotal, but both 
(?) at least in appearance, by turns. We may therefore safely use it as a 
witness . . . which cannot but reflect fairly well the beliefs and usages of 
the writer’s age and country. 


We have already said something of the Church organiza- 
tion described in this document. The importance of the 
subject, as well as the totally unexpected nature of what the 
‘Teaching’ reveals to us, warrant our returning to it again. 
The all but demonstrated date of the treatise invests what it 
tells us on this matter with the highest value. If we place it, 
as we are warranted in doing, in ‘ the mysterious period which 
comprises the last thirty years of the first century, on which 
history is wholly silent,’* it belongs to the epoch in which 
resident episcopacy was being developed. But of such epis- 
copacy there is not a trace. The bishop exercising a per- 
manent supervision over an individual congregation is still 
below the horizon, nor is there yet any indication of his 
emergence. We see the Church at its point of transition 
from a missionary to a settled form, and still exhibiting the 
organization peculiar to each condition ; the itinerant mis- 
slonary ministry side by side with the localized settled minis- 
try. This is a state of things of which we have hardly any 
trace after the apostolic times. The Shepherd of Hermas is 
almost the only document where we find any indication of a 
similar organization. In that work we have coupled together 


* Lightfoot, ‘ Epistle to the Philippians,’ p. 203. Ed. 1868. 


ltinerating Apostles and Prophets. 361 


‘apostles and bishops and teachers and deacons,’ ‘prophets of 
God and his ministers (διάκονοι, apostles and teachers of the 
preaching of the Son of God.’* But we look for them in vain 
in other early writers. In the ‘Teaching,’ as in the Acts and 
Epistles, we have at the same time itinerant ‘ apostles,’ “ proph- 
ets,’ and ‘teachers’ constantly moving from place to place, the 
latter class having the liberty, if they chose, of settlement 
and maintenance by the Christian community from the first 
fruits, and resident ‘bishops (2, ¢., presbyters) and deacons.’ 
These itinerant ministers were to be received with the utmost 
kindness and respect. No one was to presume to judge their 
utterances lest he should incur the awful guilt of sin against 
the Holy Ghost. But it was not forbidden to judge their lives 
or conversation. They were to be known by their fruits. 
However sound a prophet’s teaching, if his actions were at 
variance with it, he was to be denounced as a false prophet. 
All who came in the Lord’s name were to be received as the 
Lord, and hospitably entertained by the community. At the 
same time the utmost vigilance was to be exercised against 
any indications of these itinerant apostles and prophets de- 
siring to make a merchandize of their gifts, and exercising 
them ‘for filthy lucre’ (τ Peter v. 2). To guard against such 
‘ Christ-traffickers,’ χριστέμποροι, the following rules were laid 
down:— 


And as regards the apostles and prophets according to the decree of the 
Gospel, so do ye. Let every apostle who comes to you be received as the 
Lord.+ And he shall not remain a single day [only], but if need be a 
second also ; but if he remain three days he is a false prophet. And when 
the apostle goes forth let him take nothing beyond bread [enough to last 
him] to his night quarters; but if he ask for money he is a false prophet. 
Ye shall not try nor test any prophet speaking in the spirit; { for every 
sin shall be forgiven ; but this sin shall not be forgiven. . . . But whoso- 
ever says, ‘Give me money or other things,’ ye shall not hear him ; but 
if he speak for others in need, that ye should give to them, let no one 
judge him. 


We have a very close parallel to these traders on their 
spiritual gifts in a very remarkable passage in the Shepherd 
of Hermas (‘ Mandat.’ xi.) The writer there presents us with 
a graphic picture evidently drawn from the life of one of those 
itinerant religious charlatans, who, when he comes to an 
‘assembly’ of Christians (ovvayéyy, as in James ii. 2) ‘sets 
himself up and demands the first place, and is at the same 


* Herm., Vis. iii. 5 ; Sim. ix. 15. 
Cf. Matt. x. 5-12; Luke x. 4-20. 
Cf. for the opposite practice: 1 John iv. 1; Rev. ii. 2; 1 Cor. xii. 10. 


362 The Teaching of the Apostles. 


time audaciotis and shameless and talkative, and lives in great 
luxury, and in many other deceits, and takes pay for his proph- 
ecy, and refuses to prophesy if he does not get his fee.’ 

This whole chapter of Hermas, one of the most curious and 
interesting in the ‘Shepherd,’ is rendered much more intelligi- 
ble by the light thrown upon it by the ‘Teaching.’ The two 
taken together afford valuable illustration of the character and 
ministry of the prophets of the New Testament; a class of in- 
spired teachers which, till comparatively recent times, has been 
treated with a neglect by scholars and commentators strangely 
at variance with the conspicuous place occupied by them in the 
Acts and the Apostolic Epistles, and their recognized position 
in the Christian ministry.* 

This tendency to abuse prophetical gifts for gain or self-in- 
dulgence receives illustration from the charge brought at a later 
period against Montanus that he ‘ provided salaries for those 
who preached his doctrine, so through gluttony the teaching 
might be strengthened’ (Euseb., ‘H. E.’ v. 18). The caricature 
of an itinerant Christian teacher drawn by Lucian at a later 
date in ‘ Peregrinus’ also supplies some points of comparison. 
He describes him as ‘ Prophet, Thiasarch and Synagogeus’ all 
in one, living upon the offerings of the faithful, and plentifully 
supplied with food by those among whom he made his tem- 
porary halt. 

A special form of self-seeking is presented by the somewhat 
obscure passage ‘ no prophet who in the Spirit orders’ (or 
‘sets’) ‘a table (ὁρίζων τράπεζαν) shall eat thereof; otherwise 
he is a false prophet.’ The brevity of the injunction renders 
its meaning uncertain, but Bryennios’ explanation is probably 
correct, that it refers to those who in their ecstatic condition com- 
manded that an Agape should be celebrated or a meal provided 
for the poor, with the intention of enjoying it himself, as we 
may perceive Hermas’ ‘ false prophet,’ and Lucian’s ‘ Peregrinus’ 
did. 

A still more obscure passage presents itself in the much de- 
bated words: ‘Every approved genuine prophet who makes 
assemblies for a worldly mystery (ποιῶν εἰς μυστήριον κοσμικὸν 
ἐκκλησία), but does not teach others to do what he does 
shall not be judged by you. For his judgment is in 
the hands of God; for the ancient prophets also did likewise.’ 
All those who have tried their hands at this passage confess 
themselves more or less baffled. Bryennios confesses that he 


* Cf. Acts xiii, 1 ΧΙ. 27; xy. 32 ; xxi, ΟΣ Ὁ Corxti 20, 20, χὶν (pase) = 
Ephat.:20 3 111, 5; iv. 11 ; Rev. 11. 20 ¢oxviliw20: 
+ Lucian, ‘ Peregr. Prot.’ p. 995. Ed. Par, 1615. 


ft 


Traders upon their Spiritual Gifts. 363 


has nothing ‘definite and certain’ to say of it, and that the 
passage 15 ‘dark and obscure’ (σκοτεινὸν καὶ ἀσαφὲς) to him. 
Hilgenfeld can only extract a sense from it by a bold alter- 
ation of the text. Harnack, in a lengthy note, from which 
it is difficult to extract his meaning, tries to twist it into 
a reference to abstinence from marriage (cf. Eph. v. 32). 
Bryennios, with sounder judgment, suggests that it refers to 
some symbolical or dramatic action such as those performed 
by the Old Testament prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, 
and others, in which things of common life were employed to 
display the lessons they were charged with. Perhaps the most 
tenable of the intepretations is that proposed by Mr. Hicks 
in‘ The Guardian,’ who would understand the passage of 
those who called assemblies of the Church for the purpose of 
giving a revelation by means of prophetic utterance on coming 
events in the world’s history—such as the dearth foretold by 
Agabus (Acts xi. 28)—especially the impending judgments of 
God on the enemies of His Church. Such a use of the pro- 
phetic gifts was not to be forbidden—the prophet’s judgment 
was with God for the use or abuse of his gift—but it was not 
to be encouraged. It was not well that he should teach 
others to do what he did. Not only because it lent itself too 
readily to passion and prejudice, but also because it might 
provoke disloyalty to the civil government. 

We pass from the prophets to the apostles. Of any special 
functions belonging to their class there is no mention in the 
‘Teaching.’ They, like the prophets, appear simply as autho- 
rized exponents of the Divine will. Their exact position and 
authority is not easy to determine. It is, however, certain 
that the term is used in the lower sense in which we find it in 


‘some places of the New Testament * as Christian messengers, 


missionaries as we now call them, moving from place to place 
to spread the glad tidings of salvation. Though superior in 
rank to the prophets, the apostles played a less conspicuous 


7 econ χνὶ ἡ, ἘΠῚ, 11 25 ; 2 Cor. viii, 23; cf. 2’ Cor. xi. 13; Rev: ii-2. 

+ Of the process by which a prophet or teacher might be set apart to the 
apostolic office we have a very suggestive notice at the opening of Acts xiii. 
Barnabas and Saul are first mentioned as among the ‘ prophets and teachers’ 
of the church at Antioch. A Divine intimation directs that they are to be 
‘separated ’ for the higher ministry to which they were called. The hands of 
the church are laid upon them, and they are sent forth ‘ by the Holy Spirit’ to 
enter on a course of itinerant missionary labour. It is not till some time after 
they have entered on this that they first receive the title of * apostles,’ which is 
thenceforward consistently given them. May we conclude that this rule was 
generally adopted, and that ‘apostles’ were, in the primitive church, raised 
from the lower rank of ‘prophets and teachers,’ and usually by Divine 
intimation ? 


264 The Teaching of the Apostles. 


part in the church organization at this time, and were evi- 
dently dying out. They are just mentioned at the opening of 
the portion dealing with church organization in connection 
with the prophets, from whom indeed they are barely dis- 
tinguished ; strict rules are Jaid down as to the length of their 
stay and their provision for the way on leaving, to guard the 
church against greedy spiritual pretenders; and they pass 
out of sight altogether. We are evidently at the transition 
point when the functions of the itinerant apostle, or travelling 
missionary, were passing away as the church became localized ; 
and though the name and office were still recognized visits 
from apostles were rapidly becoming less frequent. The 
apostles had all but disappeared, and the prophets were be- 
fore long to follow them. The irregular ministry was to be 
superseded by the regular. 

We now proceed to consider the bearing of the ‘ Teaching ’ 
on the canon of Scripture. If in some respects it is less 
precise and less comprehensive than we might desire, it is, as 
far as it goes, not the less valuable. 

The use of the Old Testament in the ‘Teaching’ is but 
small. This is not at all surprising when we take into 
account the character and purpose of the work. There are 
only two distinct quotations quite at the close of the work, 
both from prophetical books. One (c. xvi. 7) is from Zecha- 
riah xiv. 5: ‘The Lord shall come and all His saints with 
Him,’ an accurate quotation from the LXX. The other 
(c. xiv. 3), “In every place and time offer me a pure offering ; 
for Iam a great king saith the Lord, and My name is won- 
derful among the Gentiles,’ is a fusion of clauses from two 
verses of Malachi (i. 11 and 14), neither being perfectly 
accurate. The Second Table of the Decalogue supplies the 
groundwork of the prohibitions of ch. it, the Tenth Com- 
mandment however being much shortened and preceding the 
ninth. We have some interesting reminiscences of Isaiah’s 
language in ch. ill. 7, ‘Be thou long suffering . . . and ever 
trembling at the words which thou hast heard,’ as compared 
with Isa. Ixvi. 2; and in ch. v. 4, ‘lovers of vain things, 
following after reward, showing no pity to the poor, not 
grieving for him who is grieved’ compared with Isa. 1. 23. 
The counsel ‘give by thy hands a ransom for thy sins’ 
(ch. iv. 4), recalls Daniel’s advice to Nebuchadnezzar Dan. 
Iv. 24. 

There is much in the pure moral teaching of this work 
which reminds us of the nobler parts of the apocryphal books, 
in this supplying us with another point of resemblance to the 


Relations to the Canon of Scripture. 365 


Epistle of St. James. We may particularly compare c. Il. 
with the counsels of Tobias to his son (Tobit iv.), ‘What- 
soever thou wouldest not to be done to thee do not thou to 
another.’ Chap. 1. 2 has also a close correspondence to 
Tobit iv. 15, ‘What thou hatest thyself do thou to no man,’ 
quoted as ‘scripture’ by Clement of Alexandria (‘ Strom.’ 
ll. p. 421). The resemblance between chap. iv. 5, ‘Be not 
thou one who s¢retches out his hands for receiving, but clenches 
them tight for giving,’ and Ecclesiasticus iv. 31, ‘Let not thy 
hand be stretched out for receiving, but clenched together in 
giving, is too close to be accidental. A close comparison 
will discover other proofs that the mind of the writer of 
the ‘Teaching’ was saturated with the latter so-called ‘Sapi- 
ential’ Jewish literature, which affords another evidence of its 
Hebraistic origin. 

It is in its relation to the canon of the New Testament 
that the chief interest of this inquiry lies. What, then, we 
may ask, is the testimony it bears as to the genuineness and 
authenticity of the Books which constitute our canon? ‘ Here,’ 
remarks the Bishop of Durham, ‘its answer is unexpectedly 
full. We have already seen that the ‘Gospel of the Lord,’ 
τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ κυρίου, 1s appealed to as the rule of faith 
and practice. What are we to understand by the ‘ gospel’? 
Was it one book, or a collection of books? And if one, with 
which, if any, of the existing four Gospels is it to be identi- 
fied? We may reply that the word ‘Gospel’ was a collective 
term not necessarily restricted to any one book, but—as the 
received titles, ‘The Gospel according to St. Matthew,’ ‘ac- 
cording to St. Mark,’ &c., indicate—denoting the record of the 
words and works of Christ which, originally oral, was gradu- 
ally fashioned by different writers, under Divine guidance, into 
what are known as the Synoptic Gospels. The oral gospel as 
shaped in writing not spreading everywhere and at the same 
time, these separate Gospels would: necessarily only become 
gradually known to the Church. The references to the evan- 
gelical facts and discourses in the early Fathers are almost 
uniformly anonymous ; made to ‘the Gospel’ simply. As Dr. 
Westcott has observed, reference to the sayings and actions 
of our Lord in the sub-apostolic age must not be regarded as 
proving that our Gospels were already in use and were the 
source of the passages quoted. He says, ‘the testimony of the 
Apostolic Fathers is to the substance and not to the authen- 
ticity of the Gospels.’ The reference is to ‘tradition’ rather 
than ‘to any written ‘accounts.”* It is with the utmost 


* Westcott’s ‘ Hist. of Canon,’ p: 60, ed. 1855. 


366 The Teaching of the Apostles. 


diffidence that we venture to dissent from any conclusion of 
the calm-judging and profoundly learned Bishop of Durham. 
He has expressed his belief that ‘the writer of the Teaching 
quotes large portions of St. Matthew.’ Certainly the corre- 
spondences with that Gospel are remarkably copious. The 
character of the work precludes any appeal to the historical 
events of our Lord’s life, or any reference to His parables. 
The quotations are, with slight exceptions, limited to the 
Sermon on the Mount and the Discourse of the Last Things ; 
and that, too, without any indication of their source, or 
indeed any intimation (beyond the title of the work) that 
they are the words of Christ. Here the likeness to St. 
Matthew is very great. The language is to a large extent 
identical. It is not surprising, therefore, that these passages 
should be regarded as direct quotations from that Gospel ; 
or, as Harnack suggests, from a Gospel of St. Matthew, en- 
riched from that of St. Luke.* We believe, however, that 
there is no sure ground for concluding that the writer had 
seen and used any one of the written Gospels. The diver- 
gences are hardly less remarkable than the correspondences. 
Both, we think, may be explained by the Evangelists and the 
writer of the ‘ Teaching’ having drawn from a common source 
the words of the Divine Teacher. That source was almost 
certainly an oral one. ‘The intertexture of words, the change 
of order, the transposition of clauses, and the verbal echoes 
where the context is different, which characterise the quota- 
tions of the ‘ Teachings,’ are such as would be natural in a 
writer repeating from memory what he had heard and learnt, 
and point to a period of transition from an oral to a written 
Gospel, such as was the age in which, we believe, the ‘ Teach- 
ing’ assumed its present form. 

We have ample proof that at the time of the drawing up 
of the ‘Teaching’ the words of Christ were very familiar 
both to the teacher and to the taught, though employed 
often in a different context, as an universally received autho- 
rity. Thus we have, ‘The meek shall inherit the earth’ (c. 
iii. 7); ‘He shall not come out thence till he has paid the 
uttermost farthing’ (c. 1. 5); ‘Give not that which is holy 
to the dogs,’ in reference to the Eucharist (c. ix. 5). Other 
less distinct echoes are found in, ‘ Whatsoever thou wouldest 
not to be done to thee, do not thou to another,’ c. 1. 2, com- 
pared with Matt. vii. 12 ; “ Thy word shall not be false,’ c. ii. 2, 


* It is hardly necessary to state that this Gospel, which Harmack’ is dis- 
posed to identify with that ‘ According to the Egyptians,’ is entirely a crea- 
tion of Harmack’s own inner consciousness. 


Relations to the Writings of St. John. 367 


compared with Matt. v. 37; ‘The Father willeth that from His 
free-gifts gifts should be bestowed on all,’ c. 1. 5 compared 
with Matt. v. 45. It will be observed that these correspond- 
ences are drawn from St. Matthew alone. We must add 
that the Lord’s Prayer is given almost exactly as it stands 
in Matt. vi. 9-13, and that the baptismal formula is identical 
with that of Matt. xxviii. το. If, therefore, any one of the 
four Gospels was laid under contribution, it was St. Matthew- 
It does not, however, necessarily follow that the writer had: 
this Gospel before him. It would be enough that the source 
from which each drew was the same. The same may be said 
of the parallels with St. Luke. 

We pass now to the Fourth Gospel. Does the ‘ Teaching” 
supply any clear evidence of its being known to those by 
whom this manual was used? Such evidence, it need hardly 
be said, considering the early date to which this treatise may 
be safely assigned, would be of the highest value. We do 
not however think that any direct evidence of this kind is 
contained in it. The only portions in which there is any 
trace of the line of thought or phraseology with which we are 
familiar in St. John’s writings are the Eucharistic devotions, 
These, it is clear, have an entirely different origin from the 
rest of the ‘Teaching.’ We may regard them as prayers already 
in common use, and therefore of earlier date than the docu- 
ment itself, inserted in this manual by the compiler. Now, the 
tone of these prayers is unmistakably Johannine. We cannot 
read them without being reminded of the words of Christ as 
recorded by St. John. The differences, it is true, are great. 
Leading conceptions in St. John are entirely wanting here. 
Words and terms are used which do not occur in the Gospel. 
Still as we read we feel that we are breathing a Johannine 
atmosphere, and that we are approaching the truths of revela- 
tion from the same quarter. When we find God addressed in 
what Dr. Westcott calls ‘the unique phrase’ ‘Holy Father ” 
(cf. John xvii. 11), and ‘the Holy Vine of David’ used in con- 
nection with our Lord (cf. xv. 1), and remark the emphasis. 
laid on the ‘Holy Name,’ as the perfect expression of what 
God is, being ‘made to tabernacle’ in the hearts of the 
faithful, whereby ‘immortality’ has been made known to 
them; and see ‘eternal life’ at one time connected (as in 
John vi.) with the spiritual food and drink imparted to them 
through Jesus, and at another (as in John xvii. 3) with the 
knowledge He had come to bring ; and read the petitions for 
the Church, that it might be delivered from evil (cf. John 
Xvil. 15) and sanctified (xvii, 17), and pexfected in love (xvii. 


368 The Teaching of the Aposiles. 


23; 1 Johniv. 18), and for its unity in the heavenly kingdom 
(xvii. 21-24), we cannot but feel that the inner relation- 
ship of these prayers with St. John’s teaching is unques- 
tionable ; and that even if the resemblances are not strong 
enough to allow us to conclude that the written Gospel was 
the source whence they were derived, it is perfectly certain 
that they must have had their origin in a community per- 
fectly familiar with St. John’s teaching as we have it in the 
Gospel. 

Of the other books of the New Testament the ‘ Teaching’ 
supplies no quotations, nor are there any certain references 
to them. ‘Though there are several passages which remind us 
of St. Paul’s Epistles the resemblance is too vague to build 
upon, while the words they have in common are not charac- 
teristic enough to warrant the supposition of borrowing. 
Even if it were certain that 1 Thess. v. 22, ‘abstain from αὐ 
appearance of evil,’ was correctly translated, the precept, ‘My 
son fly from every evil and from everything like tt, is too 
general in itself and not sufficiently close in language for us to 
lay any stress on the similarity. The same may be said of the 
precept, ‘If any craftsman desires to settle among you, Ze 
him work and eat,’ compared with 2 Thess. ill. 12, ‘that with 
quietness they work, and φαΐ their own bread.’ The resem- 
blance of the precepts for the bringing up of children, and the . 
mutual relations of masters and slaves, is also too general to 
be pressed. The phrase, ‘abstain from fleshly and worldly 
lusts,’ does certainly look lke a fusion of 1 Peter ii. 11 and 
Titus 11. 12 ; but the counsel is an obvious one from a Christian 
teacher. The closest parallel between the ‘ Teaching’ and St. 
Paul is in ch.. iv. 5, where the writer, speaking of the duty 
of sharing one’s goods with our brother, says, ‘for if ye are 
partners in that which is immortal, how much more in mortal 
things.’ This reminds us of Rom. xv. 27, ‘For if the Gentiles 
have been made partakers of their spiritual things, their duty is 
also to minister to them in carnal things.’ A likeness of thought 
there certainly is, but not close enough to build upon. The 
preceding injunction ‘not to call anything our own (οὐκ épeic 
ἴδια eval) by which our brother may be benefited’ affords 
a verbal parallel with Acts iv. 32. In addition to the ex- 
hortation to ‘abstain from fleshly lusts,’ the clause in the 
post-communion prayer, ‘let grace come, and let this world 
pass away,’ supplies a parallel to the words of St. Peter re- 
lating to ‘the grace that is to be brought at the revelation of 
Jesus Christ’ (1 Pet. i. 12). The word πύρωσις is also common 
to the two, ch. xvi. 5, 1 Pet. iv. 12. Some not very usual 


The Teaching’ antertor to the New Testament Canon. 369 


words sound like echoes of 2 Pet. 11. and Jude, "ἀυθαδής 
ΡΟΝ 10, κυριότης, ibid. Jude 8; καταπονούμενος 2 Pet. 
ll. 7; yéyyvooc Jude τό, yoyyvorai. 

Two or three passages recall the Epistle to the Hebrews, 
but they are rather natural correspondences of thought than 
quotations. The warning ‘not to come to the prayer in an 
evil conscience’ resembles ‘Let us draw near... with our 
hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience’ (Heb. x. 29). The 
charge to ‘remember them that speak to thee the word of God’ 
looks rather like an echo of Heb. ΧΙ]. 7, ‘ Remember them... 
that speak to you the word of God ;’ while the exhortation to 
prepare for the unknown day of the Lord’s coming by ‘ frequent 
assembling of themselves together,’ has a close parallel in Heb. x. 
25, ‘not forsaking the assembling of themselves together . . . and 
so much the more as ye see the day approaching.’ 

The conclusion, then, is that in the ‘Teaching’ we have a 
work anterior to the formation of the New Testament canon. 
It is possible that the writer may have been acquainted with 
the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Luke, but the probability 
is that the only Gospel known to him was a form of the oral 
tradition having great affinity to that of St. Matthew and 
some resemblance to that of St. Luke, There is no reason - 
to believe that he had any knowledge of the Gospel of St. 
John, but it is certain that the Eucharistic prayers sprang 
from a quarter where the apostle’s influence was largely felt. 
The indications of acquaintance with the other books of the 
canon are altogether too slight to build upon. The similari- 
ties of St. Peter and St. Jude are only verbal. If one or two 
verbal correspondences also suggest a knowledge of St. Paul’s 
Epistles, the idea seems to be negatived by the complete igno- 
rance displayed of any part of the apostle’s doctrinal teaching. 
If any faint echoes of his words had reached the writer’s ears, 
that was all. 

In conclusion let us say that we regard the ‘Teaching of 
the Apostles’ as supplying the most remarkable addition to 
our knowledge of the Church of the subapostolic age which 
has been made since the publication of the editio princeps 
of St. Clement in 1633, the value of which cannot be too 
highly estimated. If its revelations are startling and unex- 
pected, such as are calculated to disturb preconceived views 
on some points of considerable importance, it all the more 
deserves and we are sure will receive, patient investigation 
and unprejudiced consideration from all who deserve the name 
of theologians and scholars. If it should turn out that it will 
compel us to give up some cherished convictions and accept 

NO. ΟὝΣ τι: 24 


370 Religion tn London, 

some unwelcome conclusions, we may be thankful to be 
delivered from error, even at the cost of some pain. The full 
bearing of the discovery is as yet by no means fully appre- 
ciated. Much has yet to be done in studying it in connection 
with the remams of the contemporary Christian literature, 
scanty and fragmentary, alas! but still most precious. Till 
this has been done by some competent scholar—may we again 
venture to express the hope that the Bishop of Durham will 
undertake the work for which he is so supereminently quali- 
fied ?—all definite conclusions will be premature, savouring 
of rashness rather than of the calmness which is the proper 
attitude of theological students. We cannot close this article 
more appropriately than with the quotation from Clement of 
Alexandria, placed by Briennios on his title-page: “We must 
not, because of the speaker, ignorantly condemn beforehand 


the things spoken... 


ὄλεσσογ. 


rerio 


a 
Ma 


/ Ware interested in the use which The Living 


Church (Protestant Episcopal) makes of the 
The Evangelist © 
had said that the newly-discovered document | 


‘“‘Teaching of the Apostles.” 


does not support the theory of Apostolical Suc- 
cession.. The Living Church admits that there 
were no diocesan bishops in the first centuries, 
but contends that there were bishops correspond- 
ing to missionary bishops of the present time, 


and asserts that the apostles of the first three | 
centuries were either active missionary bishops | 


-or bishopsin charge of single city congregations, 
with elders and deacons working under them. We 
do not so understand the ‘‘Teaching.” There is 
plainly a distinction observed in the use of the 
terms ‘‘apostles,” ‘* prophets,” and ‘‘ bishops.” 


The Living Church agsumes that, in the direc- | 


tion concerning the first fruits, the term 


‘¢prophets,” 18 a synonym for ‘‘apostles.” We ἄο, 


not so understand it. All apostles, or wandering | 


_ evangelists, were prophets—that is, were inspired | 
to teach, had the charisma ; but not all prophets | 


were apostles. Apostles are always referred to 

as wanderers, and the sign of their genuineness 
was that they would not remain in one place longer 
than one day, or, at the most, three days. The 
prophets, however, were local teachers. 


prophet. ‘But if ye have no prophet, ” etc. 
That bishops were not considered as” κόρου τὰ 


but we must examine the things which 
are spoken, whether they belong to the truth.’ 


“Every — 
true prophet who will settle among youis worthy ἥ ally diminished, 
of his support.” Some congregations had no | office of the local bishops having meantime 


Ἔν δὲ φάει καὶ 
5 E. V. 
EVinaboa 


“apostles” or *‘prophets” is evident from the ) ] 
construction of chapter xv. Says The Living 
Church : ‘‘ Apostolic overseers always have’ been. 
in the Church, and these became diocesan 
bishops as soen as there were or could be territo- 
rial dioceses.” If it be true that those called | 
apostles by the ‘‘ Teaching” discharged the func- | 
tion of missionary bishops it is very strange 
that Christian communities were enjoined 


to “appoint” for themselves “bishops 
and deacons’; ‘for they, too,” it is 
added, ‘‘render you the _ service of the 


prophets and teachers.” If the apostles, as sae 
cessors of the Twelve, were discharging the — 
functions of missionary bishops, why this in-— 
junction to choose other bishops? And if the 
apostles were acting as bishops, and governing — 
the Church as the successors of the Twelve, why 
should the congregations be enjoined net to 
‘‘despise” the ‘‘bishops” they were urged 
to appoint? ‘*Despise them not, therefore; 
for they are the ones who are honored of 
you, together with the prophets and teachers,” »" 
The Living Church declares that, if the apostles 
‘*were not an order in the CHirch, there was no > 
ministry at all.” We should infer from the 
“Teaching” that, ecclesiastically, the ‘ apostles” 

therein referred to left no successors, but gradu- | 
and finally disappeared, the 


νά 


| grown in power and importance, in the end de- 
_ veloping the diocesan episcopacy. 


Whe B 


~ 


OF THE TWELVE sig te ig Ne 


BY PROF. S. STANHOPE ORRIS. 


Twelve Apostles ” closes with the sentence : 
_ thine alms sweat in thy hands until thou know 
to whom to give.” The language of this sen- 

tence is, of course, not found in the Scriptures, 
| ΠΟΥ in the Apocrypha, nor in the Rabbinical 

the Church; and the limitation which it puts 
_ on almsgiving is one which some of the Fathers 


οὗ the Church regarded as incompatible with the | 


precept to ‘‘ give to every one that asketh.” 
|. To the query, ‘‘ Some say that we should not 
give alms without examination, but should in- 
quire carefully whether he who asks is really in 
need,’ Athanasius is said to have replied: ‘*So 
those who think evil pervert the other Scriptures 
also. For if we are first to examine those who 
ask, why does the Lord say, ‘ Give to every one 
that asketh thee Ὁ ἢ 
In an application of the text, ‘‘ He maketh his 
sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and 
-sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust,” 
Chrysostom says: ‘‘And do thou, when thou 
doest alms, not examine the life, nor demand an 
account of the character. Ele€mosyna 
is so called that we may give even to the un- 
worthy. For he who pities, pities not the up- 
right but the sinner.” + 
_ Jerome says, ‘‘ We must give to every one that 
asketh, and must give without discrimination,” 
adding that: 
whom he shall give and does not give to every 
one that asketh, often omits him who deserves 
(to receive.” ἢ 
Others teach Aiserimination in giving. 
the Great says that: ‘‘We should give to him 
‘that asketh, but should determine the need of 
each of those who ask.’’§ 
_ Clemens Alexandrinus says that the perfect 
_Ohristian ‘doubtless relieves the afflicted, help- | 
| ing him with consolations, giving to all that 
need, but not similarly, but justly, according to 
desert ; and besides, to him also who persecutes 
and hates, if he should need it. For, how much 
‘more are they who, while hating evil, are gen- 
erous toward their enemies, animated with love 
toward those who belong to them! Hence such 
a man will come to know with accuracy to whom 
‘pre-eminently, and how much, and when, and 
in what way he should give.” || 
-Bryennios thinks that the Shepherd of Her- 
δὰ nae manifestly teaches the same as the Didaché 
in reference to the manner and spirit of giving. 
But this opinion, as we shall see, is incorrect. 
The Shepherd of Hermas says: *‘Do good, and 
from the labors which God giveth thee, give in 


τ ἈΚ “ Atlhanasti Opera,” Ed. Migne. Vol. IV, p. 650. 
i “ Chrysostomi Opera,” Ed, Migne, Vol. III, p. 2387. 
4, Hieronymi Opera,” Ed, Migne, lib. III, p. 1156, 


5 “ Βαβι Opera,” Ed Benedictine. Vol, Ul, p. 71, b 


ἘΝῚ “Clementis Alex.” Ed. Migné. Strom, Vil, cap 2. 


“A PASSAGE IN THE “TEACHING | . 


|| of his own gifts. 


Tur first chapter of the ‘Teaching of the | 
“Let | 


writings, nor in the writings of the Fathers of © 


“He who carefully inquires to. 


Basil | 


Give | 
For to all God wills that there be given 
‘hey, then, that receive shall 
give account to God wherefore they received 
and why ; for they that receive in affliction shall 
not be judged, but they that receive in hypocrisy 
shall pay the penalty. He, then, that giveth is 
guiltless ; for, as he received his ministry from 
the Lord to perform it in simplicity, so he per- 
formed it, without discriminating to whom to. 
give or not to give. His ministry, then, having 
been performed in simplicity, isin honor with 
God. Accordingly. he who ministers thus in 
simplicity shall live to God.’’* 

Observe that those who here receive or may | 
receive, in hypocrisy, are among the number of | 
those who are assumed to be in want. And, 
therefore, ‘‘ All that are in want,” as the phrase 
is here employed, is equivalent to ‘‘ all that pro- 
fess to be in want,” whether this profession be 
explicit or implicit. So that the injunction of 
-Hermas is to give to all that profess to be in 
_ want, and to give in simplicity, without doubt- 
ing and without discriminating. 

The doctrine on this subject in the Epistle of 
Barnabas is less explicit, but equally simple: 
‘‘Thou shalt not hesitate to give ; nor, when giv- 
ing, shalt thou murmur; give to every ore that 
asketh thee, and thou shalt know who is the 
good Rewarder of the gift.’’t 

The Apostolic Constitutions teach that ‘‘it 4s 
| our duty to do good to all men without making, 
nice distinctions between them. For the Lord 
says: ‘Give to every one that asketh thee.” It 
is evident, however, that we are to give to him 
who is really in want, whether he be friend or 
foe, whether he be a kinsman or a stranger.” { 

The Shepherd of Hermas says that those who 
receive in hypocrisy shall give account to God; 
in the ‘‘Teaching”’ the impression naturally made 
is that they shall give account to man; and they 
shall give account, first, for their motive in re- 
ceiving, and second, for what they receive, and 
shall be held in custody until they have given 
back the last farthing. Hermas says, give to) 
every one that professeth to be in want ; that is, | 
to every one that asketh thee ; and give in sim- 
plicity, without doubting and without discrimi- 
nating. The ‘‘ Teaching” says, Give to every one 
that asketh thee, provided he be in real need; 
and, therefore, do mot give in simplicity, with- 
out hesitating and without discriminating ; but. 
let thine alms sweat in thy hands until thou 
know who is indeed in want. 

The ‘* Teaching,’’ it will be observed, enjoins a 
carefulness in giving, which some regarded as a 
perversion of the Scriptures ; a carefulness in 
giving, which is not enjoined in the Epistle of 
Barnabas, nor in the Shepherd of Hermas, nor 
in the Apostolic Constitutions. And this is re- 
{| markable, if the Epistle of Barnabas and the } 


oO ies to give or to whom αὐ to give. 
to all. 


* “ Hermae Pastor.” Mand. 1. 
+ “ Barnabae Epistola.” Cap. xix. 
et 4 Conair es ἢ τῶν «ἃ ae,” Labs τὴς cap 4, 


And it is no less remarkable, if, like the Apostolic ὃ 


" ΕΠ pest eae they are later than the ‘‘ Teach- 
ing,” and indebted to it. 
Is the sentence, ‘‘ Let thine alms sweat i in thy 


late date, and was the preceding sentence then 


the words δώσει δίκην ἱνατί, etc. The usual 
technical meaning of the phrase διδόναι δίκην is 
“to give satisfaction,” ‘‘to: pay the penalty,” 
“to suffer punishment.” But it cannot have 
‘that meaning here; for we cannot say th&ta 


man shall be punished with reference to his mo- | 
tive. The translation, *‘ he shall give account,” | — 


makes good sense, but is without authority. 
_ The intransitive verb ‘‘to account,” means, ac- 
| cording to ‘‘ Webster,” 1, to render an account 
or relation of particulars ; 2, to give a reason; 
3, to answer for in reckoning or judgment. ‘In 
classic Greek, the first is διδόναι εὐθύνας. the 
second, διδόναι λόγον; and in Hellenistic Greek, 


te 


the third is ἀποδιδόναι λόγον. But never, in 
| classic, Hellenistic, Byzantine, or modern Greek, 
does the phrase διδόναι δίκην mean “ to give ac- 
| count.” Ifit meant this, it would convey the 


meaning which it cannot have in this passage. 


But why this elassic phrase in this rare sense, 


Aéyov? And why does the whole sentence, in the 
original, differ so in respect of simplicity and 
clearness from what is said in relation to giving 


following sentence, ἀλλὰ καὶ περὶ τούτου δὴ 
εἴρηται, ἰδρωσάτω, etc., there is obscurity. 
Some refer the τούτου to the precept, ** Give to 


---- a RA A ERNE AOE A ELS RENE NSIT mee 


man who asked and received when he had no 
need. According to the first view, the καὶ 
(which modifies, not the following verb, but the 
phrase περὶ τούτου) is translated also; according 


hands,” ete., genuine? Or was it inserted ata | 


additional idea of ἃ satisfactory account, a | 


in the Shepherd of Hermas, the Epistle of Bar- | 
nabas, and the Apostolic Constitutions? In the | 


modified, both in thought and style, in order that | 
the whole sentence might have the appearance | 
of antiquity? The preceding sentence contains | 


It must, therefore, mean ‘to submit to trial.” © 


and not κριθήσεται, or δικασθήσεται, Or ἀποδώσει, 


every one”; others refer it to the case of the | 


to the second view, it is translated even. It is — 


further noteworthy that there were two verbal 
mistakes in this_sentence in the manuscript 
found by Bryennios, ἑ ἱδρωτάτω for ἱδρωσάτω, and 
. δὲ for δὴ. 
“ἢ “ae the language, ‘“‘Let thine alms sweat in thy 
hands until thou know to whom to give,” were 


meant to express, not the doctrine of the apos- 


, them on the subject of giving, it should have no 

place in the ‘‘ Teaching,” which professes to be 

“th ‘Teaching of the Apostles” and not that of 
, Others. 

It is needless to say that the verb idpwodtw 
is radically the same in four members of the 
{ Indo-European family of languages, and has 
radically the same.meaning in them all—viz., the 
meaning ‘‘to sweat.” And the proposed substi- 


‘fles; but that of a teacher who differed from | 


᾿ 
ἡ 


troduces a thought adversative to the unquali- 


fied precept ‘‘to give to every one that asketh.” | 


And the meaning, in effect, is: Give to every one 
that asketh ; but even in view of the fact that some 


ask and receive who have no need, wait until | 


you are sure that he who asks isin need, and 


"tution by Hilgenfeld of ἱδρυσάτω ἴον idpucdtwdoes |) 
| not materially affect the meaning of the sentence ; 
for the ἀλλά, which introduces the senteuce, in- 


that you are right in giving. This is correct | 


doctrine, as far as it goes; but it is a doctrine in 
advance of that held by the Church on this sub- 
ject at the time when the “Teaching” was writ- 
ten. 


PRINCETON COLLEGE. 


τ» --«ς, ὦ 


THE TEACHING OF THE 1WE) VE | 


APOSTLES. 


BY PROF. 5. | STANHOPE ORRI he y 


Tne translations that appeared a year ago of 


the words σωθήσονται ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ Tov καταθέματος — 
in the last chapter of the “‘Teaching of the — 


Twelve Apostles,” all differed from each oth 51 
and no one of them was felt to be in all respects 
satisfactory. Harnack said that he did not un- 
derstand the words, and so left them untrans- 
lated. In the Andover Review they were ren- 
dered: *‘Shall be saved by Him the Curse.” To 
say no more, there is nothing in the contextua 
relations, and nothing in the known use of the 
particular word κατάθεμα to justify this transla- 
tion. 

Hitchcock and Brown’s translation was: 
‘‘Shall be saved from this curse.” . 

The radical meaning of ὑπό is under ; and, of 
course, the preposition from, when used in a 


local sense or ina sense analogous to the local, | 


is not equivalent to the preposition under, when 


used in a local sense or in a sense analogous to. 


the local. Neither is the demonstrative pronoun 
this equivalent to the intensive αὐτοῦ, 

Another translation was: ‘‘Shall be saved 
from under the curse itself.” The idea expressed 


by from is not contained in ὑπό, but is sug-— 


gested by the relation of the genitive αὐτοῦ τοῦ 
καταθέματος ἰο the motion or action of the verb 
as qualified by ὑπό. The student of Homer is 
familiar with this rendering of ὑπό in connection 
with the genitive after a certain class of verbs. 
For instance, “Iliad” xiii, 198: ὥστε δύ᾽ αἶγα 
λέοντε κυνῶν ὕπο καρχαροδόντων ἁρπάξαντε---- 


“85 two lions, having snatched a goat from un-— 


der the sharp-toothed dogs.” And xvii, 235; 
νεκρὸν ὑπ’ Αἴαντος ἐρύειν----““ 0 drag the corpse 
from under Ajax.” 

These translations, the last of which expressed 
my own understanding of the words a year ago, 
all assume that σωθήσονται involves the idea of 
delivering, of rescuing. 

In classic Greek, one of the first meanings of 
g pate is to preserve, protect, keep safe. For in- 


. 


| 


stance, Demosthenes, speaking of a common” 
safeguard against tyrants, which the nature of | 
be ἘΊΜΌΙΡ meni possesses oe ips Ἢ “4 3% hear- ‘| as though it were not αὐτοῦ, but τούτους And 
ἘΣ ΧΩ If you preserve this (ἐὰν ταύτην, σώζητελ, Ὁ their present rendering of it is ‘even this,” as 
/you can suffer no harm.” And Thucydides 

reports Themistocles as saying that ‘Athens 
‘wag surrounded by walls, and so was able to 
| protect her citizens” (σώζειν τοὺς ἐνοικοῦντας). 
| In the New Testament Greek, σώζω frequently, 
if not generally, involves the idea of deliverance, 
of rescue, And, hence, the verb to save, by 
| which it is nearly always rendered in the English 
version, involves, no less frequently, the like 
' idea. Asin the following passages: ‘‘He shall 
save* his people from their sins.” ‘‘Save thy- 
self and come down from the cross.” ‘Thy | 
| faith hath saved thee.” ‘*The prayer of faith 


ὅπ... 


ever, as the words ‘‘ even this” are a mistransla- 


not contained in the original. 

Since, then, when we understand σωθήσονται 
as expressing deliverance, it is difficult, if not 
impossible, to see a satisfactory reason for the 
presence of αὐτοῦ in the text, let us understand 
the verb as expressing preservation, and then 
the translation will be: While many shall perish 
in the fiery trial, ‘‘they who endure in their 


curse’”; that is, the trial when it is at its utter- 


| faith ‘shall be preserved beneath the very | 


- ghall save him that is sick.” 


But while σώζω is often used in this sense in 
the New Testament, there are passages in which 
it has the other meaning—that of preserving. 


most. ‘‘ And then,” when they have been pre- 
served even in the extreme of the trial, then 


of an opening in heaven, then the sign of a sound 


| As in Mark viii, 35: ‘*Whosoever will save 
| (σῶσαι) his life, shall lose it.” Here, as σῶσαι 
| and the verb to lose are antithetic, σῶσαι means, 
| not to rescue, to deliver, but to preserve, to 
| keep. And in IL Tim. iv, 18: “The Lord will 
| deliver me from every evil work, and will save 
| (σώσει) me unto his heavenly kingdom, σώσει 
| involves the idea of preservation. 

| And now the question is, in which of these 
two senses—to deliver or to preserve—owlyoovtat 
is used in the last chapter of the ‘‘ Teaching.” 
If in the former sense, then the third transla- 
tion is correct, viz.: While many shall perish in 
the fiery trial, “they who endure in their faith 
shall be delivered from beneath the curse itself.” 
But why is it said that they shall be delivered 
‘from beneath, not the curse, but the curse 
αὐτοῦ, the curse itself? Drs. Hitchcock and 


of a trumpet, and third, the resurrection of the 
dead; not of all, however, but as was said: The 
Lord shall come and all the saints with him. 
Then shall the world see the Lord coming upon 
the clouds of heaven.” ; 
To this translation of the words there is, there 
can be, no objection on grammatical grounds; 


the promise made to believers in like circum- 
stances, Luke xxi, 18: “ Not a hair of your head 
shall perish.” 

I may add that, in the light of this rendering 
of the passage, the last chapter of the “‘ Teach- 
| irg” favors the opinion that the trial will con- 


Nees of heaven. 
PRINCETON COLLEGE, 


regards it, not, it is true, as acanonical, but | 
as one of the books appointed to be read by ~ 
-catechumens. In the Stichometry of Ni- 
cephorus it stands between the gospel of | 
Thomas and the epistles of Clement. ; 
Moreover, we had the first six chapters of 
the book (the whole book is about as long 
as the epistle to the Galatians), for the 
most part in the moral teachings in Bar- 
nabas, in the ‘‘ Constitutions” and ‘‘ Didas- 
_kalia” and in the ““᾿Επετομὴ opov”; but these 
_ordinances become of anentirely new value 
when we find them in this work, the great 
Clement, of Alexandria, quotes itas “Scrip. | age of which can be proved. The second 
ture”; Eusebius places it beside the ‘‘Shep- | | part—Chapters vii—xvi—is essentially new, 
| herd,” the ‘‘ Apocalypse of Peter,” and the | although the seventh book of the ‘‘ Consti-~ 
| “<pigile of Barnabas”; and Athanasius tutions” proves to be a recasting and, so to” 


: TOLIC CHURCH HISTORY, 
ie In the Theologische Literaturzeitung, Leip- 


zig, 1898..No. 3, Prof. Adolsh Harnack, 
of Giessen, gives an interesting account of 
the Avday7 τῶν ἀποστόλαν (‘* Teaching of the 
Aposties”) which has just been published 
by the learned metropolitan bishop of Nico- _ 
media, Philotheos Bryennios. It isa pleas- 
ant surprise for students of Church history 
to receive a new document from the second 
century. The name of the book wasknown. 


"A GREAT DISCOVERY IN APOS. | 
| 
| 


Brown evidently saw a difficulty here a year [ἘΠ 
ago, when they rendered the intensive pronoun | 


tion of αὐτοῦ, so they express a thought that is | 


‘‘shall appear the signs of the truth ; first the sign | | 


tinue until the appearance of the signs of the a 
truth and the coming of the Lord upon the |) | 


though it were not αὐτοῦ, but καὶ τούτου. How- | | 


and in respect to doctrine it is in harmony with | _ 


fers te at 


| nas ΑΝ 


ἶ order that is known. 


| very. little. 


— υν.Ψνν 


pes modernizing ¢ of it. 


~ Thisb 0k, then, is laid before » us by ae 


ennios, edited with great care. Its genu- 


proved by the editor. 


5 ee of Hermas”’ can andi com- 
pete with the ‘‘Teaching of the Twelve 


| Apostles” in antiquity, and it belongs in 


one class with the oldest documents we 


| possess from the Gentile Church. The pe- 
| culiarity of the book is increased by the 


fact that it is the oldest book of Church 
Jt throws light on 
points inthe epistle to the Ephesians, in 
Acts, in the first epistle of Clement, in Her- 
mas, and in Lucian’s ‘‘ Peregrinus.” Har- 
nack leaves the date for the moment open; 
but, whatever place may be assigned to it 
between 100 and 160, it places the Church 
before us ata period of which we know 
it may have been written in 
Syria or Egypt. 
in the future in our treatment of ‘‘ apostles,” 


| ‘*prophets,” “ὁ teachers,” bishops and dea- 


the constitution of the Church -and for the 
history of worship. 


the beginning of the entire body of litera- 
ture in the ancient Oriental Church, which 


refers to Church order or constitutions; and 


that it makes clear much that was doubtful 
before. For example, to recur to the sev- 
enth book of the ‘‘Constitutions” men- 
tioned above, the ‘‘ Teaching” bears about 


the same relation to it that the shorter Ig- | 


natian epistles do to the longer. The re- 
viser modernized the old book, put “ priests” 
for ‘‘prophets,” put ‘‘presbyters” in, 
smoothed down the eschatology and thinned 
out the prayers. 


confirms a conjecture of Prof. Gustav 


It will have to be our guide | 


‘The fact is that in the “‘ Teaching” we have | 


= = el 


pare ie ss LIES 
-..----ΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΕΞΕ ποι τπἔοειοἔοΠΨπ ποι ἐἔἐντοιοέἔέἔουισἔοσοΕΙσιἔςος....-.--.ς-ςςς- 


and, the original having not yet reached 
us, we translate TT Harna afte terre ay 
sheets just received: 

“ἐ Διδαχῇ τῶν LB ea: Cora 
xvi. 

“ἢ, But as to baptism, baptize thus: 


ΠΕΣ 8 vii— 


[the moral teachings of chapters i-—vi], in the 
name of the Father and of the Son and of the 
Holy Ghost, in flowing water. If, however, thou 
hast no flowing water, then baptize with other 
water; if there be no cold at hand, with warm. 
But if thou hast neither, then sprinkle the head 
three times with water in the name of the Father 
and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. But be- 
fore the baptism, the baptizer and the baptized 
are to fast. 
baptized to fast a day or two beforehand. 


“8. Your fasts are not to be ordered like those | 


of the hypocrites ; for these fast on Monday and 
Thursday. Ye however shall fast on Wednes- 
day and Friday. Neither shall ye pray like the 
hypocrites, but pray as the Lord has commanded 
in his Gospel; ‘ Our Father, ‘etc.’ Three times 
a day shall ye pray thus. 
‘*9, As for the eucharist, ye shall give thanks: 

First in reference to.the cup; ‘We thank Thee, 


cons. The title ‘apostles ” is used exclu- |) our Father, for the holy vine of thy child David, 
sively in the sense of wandering evangel- || which thou hastrevealed to us through thy child 
ists; presbyters are not mentioned atall. It || Jesus. Honor beto Thee to eternity.’ In refer- 
is a first-class document for the history of |} ence to the broken bread, however: ‘We thank 


Thee, our Father, for the life and the knowledge 


/f stitutions”; and Bryennios aoe this“) 
 Harnack tramslates the larger and more 


| interesting part “of the book. into German, 
ineness Harnack acknowledges to have been — 


‘The trifling external. 
‘fact. is noteworthy that the stichometry of | 
Nicephorns sives 200 as Ne aa? "of 


oe- 


Baptize | 
after thou hast imparted all the above doctrines | 


Thou shalt command the | 


which thou hast declared unto us through thy 


child Jesus. Honor be to Thee to eternity. As 


this broken bread was strewr upon the hills — 
Tthat i isas grain] and brought together and be- 
came one, 80 may Thy church be brought to- | 


gether from the ends of the earth into Thy 


kingdom; for Thine is the honor and power 


through Jesus Christ to eternity.’ Let no one, 


however, eat or drink of your eucharist except 


those baptized in the name of the Lord; for in 


reference to this the Lord said: Ye shall not give | 


that which is holy to the dogs, 

“10, After ye have eaten, ye shall give thanks 
thus: ‘We thank Thee, Holy Father, for Thy 
holy name, for which Thou has prepared a dwell- 
ing in our hearts, and for the knowledge, and 


| the belief, and the immortality, which Thou hast 
Bryennios shows how his new volume | 


made known to us through thy child Jesus; to 
Thee be honor in eternity. Thou, Almighty Lord, 


᾿’ ἐν τς. ΄ κα Ἂν 


a 


hast created all for. Thy name’s sake; food and 
drink Thou hast given to men for their use, 
} that they may thank Thee; but upon us Thou 


Bickell’s, and an assertion of Harnack’s 
with reference to the ‘‘ ’Exito7 ρων." Bick- 


OO 


ell, and after him Dr. Oscar Von Gebhardt, 
had pointed to some older book now lost 


-as the true basis of the ‘‘ Constitutions,” 
{book VII, and of the ‘‘Epitome”; and here | 
we have that older book. Besides, Harnack | 


had insisted upon it that the ‘‘ Epitome,” 
as it was, could not be of the second 


century, but must be soba than the ‘‘ One 


ὐσπσσαπου σον"... Ee 


Oe 


hast graciously bestowed spiritual food ana 
drink and eternal life through Thy child. Above 


| all we thank Thee becanse Thou art mighty. 


To Thee be honor to eternity, Remember, Lord, 
Thy church, to lead her forth out of all evil, and’ 
to perfect her in Thy love; gather her together | 


from the four winds, her, the consecrated one 
into Thy enB Om Which Thou hast prepared 


------- — 


TT 


<r 


fe apne is is the power and the honor. oO 
ernity.. Let 

vanish away. ἐπ αχα to the Son of David! 
‘Let him that is holy, come forward ; let him that | 
| is not, repent. Maranatha. Amen.’ 
| mit the prophets to say thanks, as much as they 
please. 


teaches you all this that has just been said, him 
receive. If however the teacher himself teaches 
ἰὴ perverseness another doctrine, so that he 
annuls the above, hear ye him not; but if he 
teaches so that he increases righteousness and 


the Lord. 


_Maoreover ye shall proceed as follows, according 
to the directions of the gospel: Let every apostle, 
who comes to you, be received asthe Lord. He 
will not remain longer than a day, or if necessary 
a second day; if he remains three days he isa 
false prophet. When the apostle goes away 


grace come and let. this world — 
But per-_ 


toca Whosoever now comes [to you] and 


the knowledge of the Lord, then receive him as | 


“In reference to the apostler and prophets ᾿ 


' again, let him take nothing with him but bread | 


and give them according to the ordinance. 


enough for aday; if he asks for monéy, he is a | 


false prophet. And every prophet that speaks 
‘in the Spirit,’ him ye shall neither examine nor 
condemn ; for every sin is forgiven; but this sin 
is not forgiven. But not every one that speaks 
‘in the Spirit,’ is a prophet, but only he who 
shows the behavior of the Lord, By his behavior 
therefore the false prophet and the prophet can 
be recognized. No prophet [speaking] ‘in the 
Spirit’ orders a mealand eats of the same, unless 
he is a false prophet. Every prophet moreover 
who teaches the truth, is a false prophet if he 
does not do what heteaches, But every prophet, } 
proven and true, who performs an action to 
symbolize the mystery of the church in the 
world, but at the same time does not teach 
[others] to do what he himself does, he shall not 


Se 


for even thus did the ancient prophets act. But 
_ whosoever says ‘in the Spirit,’ Give me money 
_ or something else, him hear ye not; if however 
he speaks of gifts in reference to others who are 
in need, then no one shall judge him. 

“12, Every one that cometh in the name of 
the Lord, let him be received ; but then ye shall 
examine him and learn what his case may be, 
for ye should have the power of distinguishing 
between the good and the eyil. 
comer is a wanderer help him as much as ye can, 
He will however not stay with you, unless it be 
for two or three days, if it be necessary. But if 
he wishes to take up his abode among you as a, 
workman, then he is to work and eat. If how- 
_ever he has learned no trade, then ye shal 
according to your intelligent perception [of the 
case] see to it that no one without occupation live 
with you as a Christian. If he will not agree to 
this, then he is one who puts Christ out at usury, 
| Hold yourselves aloof from such. 

_ “13. Every true prophet, however, who de- 
_ sires to establish himself among you, is worthy 
_of his support. Likewise, also, is a true teacher 
as a workman, worthy of his support. All the 


= SY POR SE AEE τοῦτον χει φημ NT A SL πος τ 


iaaeblenge of the products of thy.wine-press and [8 


be judged by you; for his judgment is with God; 


If the new } 


1 thanks, after ye have confessed your misdeeds, 


| teachers. 


| it in the Gospel of our Lord. 

(46, Watch over your life; your lamps shall not . 
go out and your loins shall not become slack; ὶ 
but be ready, for ye know not the hour in which | i it 


"thee 


your high priests. 
{among you], then give it to the poor, 


But if ye have no. prophet 
When 


thou makest a batch of dough, take the first of 
-itand give it according to the ordinance. .So }: 


likewise when thou openest a vessel of wine or 
: oil, take the first of it and give it to the prophet. 


. Take also the firstlings of gold and clothes and’ % 


of every possession according to thy diseretion 


‘14, On the Lord’s day ye shall gather your- 
selves together and break the bread and say 


in order that your offering may be 
clean, Let no one who is at odds with his 
friend, assemble with you, before they have be- 


come at one with each other, in order that your | 


offering may not be profaned, This is what the 
᾿ word spoken by the Lord has reference to: 


the Lord and my name is wonderful among the 
nations.’ 

‘15, Choose for yourselves, besides, bishops aa 
deacons, who are worthy of the Lord, gentle and 
not miserly, and upright and proven men; for 
they perform also for you the service of the 
prophets and teachers. Despise them not, there- 
fore, for they are your honored men [this pass- 
age is not perfectly clear] with the prophets and 
Convince one another not in anger but 
in peace, a8 ye find itin the Gospel, andif a 


man have injured his neighbor, let no one speak 
| to him, norlet him hear a word from you until 
f he haschanged his mind. But your prayers. and, 


your alms and all that ye do, so do it as ye fi 


\ 


our Lord cometh. Ye shall moreover assembl ἐξ; | 
| yourselves together often, and seek after that ey 
which your souls need ; for the whole [past] time» 


of your belief wil! not be of the least use to you, 
if ye have not grown perfect in the last time.) 
For in the last days the false prophets and the. 
corrupters will increase and the sheep shall 


{ turn themselves into wolves and love will turn. 
to hatred; for when unrighteousness assumes | 


sway, they will hate and persecute and deliver 
up one another, and then the deceiver of the 
world will appear, as if he were the Son of God, 
and will do signs and wonders, and the earth 
shall be delivered into his hands, and he will do 


wickedness such as has never been, since the be= 
Then will the creationof men 


ginning of time. 
[that is all. men] come into the fire of proy- 


ing and many will take offense and be lost. - 
Those however who continue firm in their be-— 
lief will be saved [here follows a doubtful | 


And then the signs of the truth will 
first the sign that the heaven opens, 


clause]. 
appear : 


then the sign of the trumpet blast, and, third, — 


the resurrection of the dead, yet not of all, but » 
as is said : 


of ΓΝ cattle and sheep shalt } 
thou take fad give to the prophet, for they are ἢ 


‘In } 
| every place and at every time shall they offer me 
apure offering. For I am a great king, saith > 


: ‘The Lord will come and all 186 EE 


which breathes in every line of this δ books) ἢ 


ae 


sant ER, 


with at Then will ihe rot. “see TH 
oie upon the clouds of Heaven,” 
us far the “Teaching. ” Look ~ 
the Christian Church, at your. own 
icular church and congregation, | 
w much can still be found of the simp. ic. 
‘in thought, in order, in worship, in life, 


τ" 
SE, 


“THE BRYENNTOS MANUSCRIPT. 


᾿ TrrouGn the kindness of the libravak of 
the Union Theological Seminary, N. Y., we 


have been permitted to examine the first 


translated it) is: 


copy of the work of Bryennios which has 
reached the metropolis. The title (as we 
‘Teaching of the Twelve 


Apostles, now ‘published for the first time 


his edition 


from the Jerusalem Codex, with prolego- 
mena and notes, together witli a collation of 
the synopsis of the Old Testament, by John 


Chrysostom, and an unpublished portion of | 
the same codex, by Philotheos Bryennios, | 


metropolitan of Nicomedia. Large octavo, 5 
francs, 232 pages: Constantinople, 1883.” 
The Manuscript was discovered by Bry- 


ennios in the library of the Most Holy | 


Sepulcher, in Fanar, of Constantinople, | 


and announced to the learned world in 
his of the Epistles 
ent, published at Constantinople, - 1875. 
The Manuscript is an 8vo volume, written 
on parchment in cursive characters. It con- 
tains 120 leaves, andis numbered 456 in the 
Library. It has a colophon, giving the date 


of the Manuscript as 1056 A. D., and the 


scribe, Leon. In 1875 Bryennios announced 
that the’ Manuscript contained, beside the 
epistles of Clement, which he then pub- 
lished, the epistles of Barnabas and Igna- 


‘tius, and also the synopsis of John Chrys- 


which had been lost. 


ostom and the teaching of the twelve 
apostles, and promised to publish these as 
‘soon as possible. The Manuscript con- 
tained a section of the epistles of Clement 
It presented to the 
learned world for the first time after many 

ἔυϊτσς these epistles i in a complete form. 


~ The learned bishop now gives us the synop- 


| sis of John Chrysostom and the Teaching of 


the Apostles, together with other little bits 
of great interest. The delay in publishing 


has been bestowed, in the prolegomena and 


1 notes, in tracing all the references to this 


| long-lost writing in all the earliest Christian 
γ writings, so that the evidence of the gen- 


ὟΝ: 


; 


‘uineness and antiquity*of the document is 
overwhelming. If there had been a prema- 
ture publication the Christian world would 


| 


of Clem- | 


| is fully justified by the immense labor that: 


the interest. of. tl 


| But the learned bishop has wisely retaine 


more citation from the Apocryphal books 


whose darling theories are destroyed byvit. 
dL 
the document until he could present it in 

such a form as to compel the consent of the 
learned world. It comes exactly at the 


|.right time to smite with crushing power 
the sectarian prejudices of the several | 
It will exert | 


Churches of Christendom. 
a powerful infiuence in breaking down the 
denominational barriers. 

The prolegomena takes up 149 pages, 
the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles 


with the elaborate notes ὅδ pages, the — 
The — 
whole work is a splendid exhibition of | 
scholarship. Itis a sign that the Orient is to. 


indexes and appendixes, 20 pages. 


play an important part in the learned world 
of thefuture. American scholars will have 


to study their Greek with renewed dili- 
gence if they would keep up with the pro- | 
| duction of the rising scholarship of the 


Greek Church. If classical Greek has be- 
come less important, ecclesiastical Greek 
has risen to vastly greater importance in 
our times. One of the finest sections of 
work is the exhibition, by a difference of 
Greek type, of the text of the Teaching of the - 
Twelve Apostles embedded in the Seventh 
Bookof the Apostolic Constitutions,and then 


| also inthe midstof the Epitome of therules 


of the holy apostles, where, as in the Apos- 
tles’ Creed, each apostle has his share- in 
pointing out the way of life. 


opsis of Chrysostom of this MS. with the 
text given in Migne. There is besides a 
curious list of the Old Testament books in 
Hebrew and in Greek placed in the MSS. be- 


tween the second epistle of Clement and the 


Teaching of the Twelve Apostles. The order 
of this list is: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, 
Joshua, (this order, it will be noticed, in- 
serts Joshua in the middle of the Hexa- 
teuch) Deuteronomy, Numbers, Ruth, Job, 
Judges, Psalter, I, II, II, IV Kings, 
[and I] Chronicles, Proverbs, Ecclesiates, 
Song of Songs, Jeremiah, The Twelve 
Prophets, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel I and IT, 
Ezra, Esther. This must be very ancient 
and will be greatly valued by old Testa- 
ment critics. Bryennios gives a list of pas- 
sages of Scripture cited in the teaching of 
the apostles. These are from the Old Testa- 
ment: Deut. v, 17—19, Zechariah xiv, 5, 
Malachi i, 11—14. From the Apocryphal 
book, Tobit 1, Sirach 8; thus there isene- 


Sceral denominations 


There is also ~ 
a careful comparison of the text of the syn-— 


| 
| 


CE gn SS RE ETE Ὁ 


Testa 
“there are, fromeMatthew. 20, from Luke 6, 
from the Acts iv, 3%. The Gospels of | 
John and Mark are not cited. The citations | 
from the epistles are Ephesians vi, 5—9, 
I Thessalonians v, 22, and I Peter ii, 11, 
The Apocalypse is not cited, even where we 
| would expect it, in Chapter xvi. 

The Teaching of the Apostles in chapters 
| i.-vi. is ethical; ifi vii.—xvi. ecclesiastical 
} and liturgical. The doctrines of faith are 
| only indirectly taught. The type of theol- 
| ogy represented is distinctly the earliest 

type—the Jewish Christian—and indeed the 
earliest form of that type—the one repre- 
sented by Matthew and James. It is a 
type free from the slightest taint or suspi- 
cion of heresy. The Jewish Christian type 
| speedily developed into heretical formes. 
‘That this writingis simple and pure and so 
| near the spirit and the letter of the doc- 
itrine of Jesus, according to Matthew, is 
' one of the strongest evidences, not only of 
its genuineness, but still more of its very 
| great antiquity. We do not see howit can 
| be placed later than the middle of the sec- 
; ond century. In tends toward the first 
} half of that century, and is by all odds the. 
| most important writing exterior to the New. 
Ϊ Testament, now in the PORseSieR of the 
| | Christian. world. 


THE “TEACHING OF THE APOS- 


/TLES.” out 6 Step | 


_ Ivy our article of February 27th we gave | 
1 an advance translation of the latter part of | 


the ‘Teaching,’ the part which was un- 
known before. Since thena remarkable in- 
1 terest has been taken in the work by our 
F American scholars, and three complete trans- 
lations have appeared, made from the text 
of Bryennios, one by Professors Hitchcock 


text), one in the Andover Review, by Mr. 
Starbuck, and one by Prof. Frederick 


——S ---- 


Gardiner, in The Churchman. We give, to- | 


day, our translation of the first six chapters 
known as ‘‘The Two Ways,” and found in 
ἃ variety of shapes in the literature of the 
Early Church, We have taken advantage 
of American, English and German investi- 
gations thus far. 

Observe, in advance, the circumstance | 
that Matthew XXVili, 19, 20 seems to give 
the frame upon which this ‘ Teaching” is i 
built up. a. “Teach all nations” corre-, 
ponds with the ‘‘ Two Ways” of life and) 
of death, ἐὰν first six chapters which stand| 

“below. ὁ - “Baptizing them in the name 


continuation in chapters eight to fifteen. 
And, although there is no emphasizing of 


‘fend of the world,” is chapter sixteenth. 


‘be said to be so far 


_Harnack still inclines to the years, say 140 


and Brown (with their reprint of the Greek | 


| is not quite clear.] 


Il Holy Ghost” is found in ὄρνεις, peyouier 
é. ‘Teaching them to observe all tings. 
| whatsoever [have commanded you” is the- 


the ‘‘Lo! 1am with you always,” (d.) the | 


In Germany the discussion is still in 
progress, if, indeed, the first surprise can 
overcome as to 
leave room for the discussion to begin. 


to 150, and to Egypt as the country in 
which it arose, and Delitzsch seems to agree 
with him. Luthardt thiaks it belongs to 
Northern Palestine and about the year 100. 
We may add that the Archimandrite Ba- 
pheides, in reviewing Bryennios’s book ina 
Constantineple journal, (the ᾿Εκκλησιαστικὴ ᾿ 
᾿Αλήϑεια) declares himself to be in favor of 
the date 100. There can be little doubt 

that this date is too early. ° Harnack, whose | 
knowledge of the first three centuries is of | 
the widest character, is publishing the > 
‘* Teaching” in the first fasciculus of the 
second volume of ““ Texte und Untersuch- 
ungen,” and a proof of the first sheets lies 
before us, containing the Greek text anda 

German translation in parallel columns. 

Full notes are in the printers’ hands, and 
prolegomena with excursus are almost 
jready. Let us turn to the text: 


TEACHING OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES. 


Teaching of the Lord through the Twelve 
| Apostles to the nations. 

I.—1, There are two ways—one of Life, and 
‘one of Death; and there is a great difference 
‘between the two ways. 2. The Way of Life, 
‘then, is this: First, Thou shalt love God, that 
made thee ; second, thy neighbor as thyself ; and 
all things that thou dost not wish done to thee, 
do them not thyself’ to another. 3. The teach-. 
ing of these words is this: Bless those who curse 
you and pray for your enemies, and fast for those 
hoa nersecnta you, for what kind of grace is it 
if ye love those that love you? Do not the hea- ; 


Se Σ' δαρς, 
ag aa ne le CLT OL LTS, 


Pr! 


and ye shall not have an enemy. 4, Abstain 
from fleshly and worldly desires. If any one. 
give thee a blow on the right cheek, turn the 
other also to him, and thou shalt be perfect; if 
any one compel thee to go a mnile, go with him 
two; if any one take away thy cloak, give him 


| thy coat also; if any one take from thee that ἷ 
[The «1; 


which is thine do not demand it back. 


text adds: ‘* For indeed thou canst not”; which 


5. Give to every one 
that asketh of thee, and demand it not again ; 


for the Father wishes that something be given 
to all out of the favors which have been be-. 
stowed upon each. Blessed is he that give 
t- 


according to the commandme Par he is 


μ᾿ 


then the same? But love those that hate you, || ἡ 


cents 


oue in need receiveth he shall be innocent ; “bat | 
he who is not in need shall give satisfaction 
wherefore he received and to what ond; and be- 


ing put in prison, he shall be examined as to 


what he has done; and he shall not come out 
thence until he pay back the last farthing. 


8. Moreover, concerning this-also is it said: Let 
thine alms sweat in thy hands [drop down | 


on thy hands.”—“J. W.” (John Wordsworth, 
Prebendary of Lincoln?) in The Guardian, 


| March 19th] till thou knowest to whom thou 
--givest. | 


II.—1. The second commandment of the Teach- 
ing. 2. Thou shalt not murder, thou shalt not 
commit adultery, thou shalt not commit poder 


| asty, thou shalt not go with hariots, thou shalt, 


not steal, thou shalt not use magie arts, thou. 


shalt not prepare poisons, thou shalt not com-— 


mit abortion, neither shalt thou kill the child 


that has just been born, thou shalt not desire 


that which is thy neighbor’s, 8. Thou shalt not 
swear, thou shalt not bear false witness, thou 


shalt not backbite, thou shalt not cherish revenge. 


RR me mn 
2 


4, Thou shalt not be double-minded, nor double- 
tongued; for a double-tengue is a snare of 
death. 5. Thy speech shall not be false nor 
empty, but filled with the deed. 6. Thou shalt 
not be an avaricious man, or a robber, or a 
hypocrite, or an evil-minded man, or a puffed-up 
man; thou shalt not take evil counsel against 
thy neighbor. 7. Thou shalt hate no man, but 
some thou shalt reprove and for these thou shalt 


pray for: ‘‘for some thou shalt pray,”], and | 


some thou shalt love more than thine own soul. 
111.--1. My child fiee from every evil and from 
everything that is like it. 
anger, for anger leads to murder; be neither 
jealous nor quarrelsome nor touchy, for from 
all of these murders arise. 3. My child, be not 
lustful, for lust leads to harlotry, neither a 
speaker of obscene words, neither a man of lofiy 
eyes [The sense here seems to be one who stares 
around at women.], for from allof these sins of 
adultery arise. 4. My child, be not an augur 
{one who prophesies from the flight or voice of 
birds.] since that leads to idolatry, nor a cou- 
jurer nor an astrologer nor a cleanser [one who 
pretends to cleanse from disease or from sin by 
sacrifices or other processes.], neither wish to 
look at these things, for from all of these idola- 
try arisps. 
lying leads to stealing, nor a covetous man, nor 
a lover of empty fame, for from all of these arise 
thefts. 


minded, for from all of these blasphemies arise. 


' JT. Be meek, for ‘‘the meek shall inherit the 


earth.” 8. Be long-suffering and merciful and 


_ free from evil, and quiet and good and always 
_ attentive to the words [literally ‘‘ trembling at 


the words”’ ; compare Isaiah Ixvi, 2,] which thou 
hearest. 9. Thou shalt not exalt thyself, neither 
shalt thou give self-confidence a placein thy soul. 
Thy soul shalt not cleave to the kfty ones, but 
thou shalt converse with the just and the hum- 
ble. 10. Whatsoever things befall thee, accept 


5. My child, be nit a liar, since 


2. Be not given to , 


6. My child, be no murmurer, since it | 
leads to blasphemy, nor self-sufficient, nor evil- | 


See ee ee πον πππτοο τ 1 -- ἀρο---- - υππσττασαμακα 


πος ἣν in ‘that. ΠῚ Ἢ ὝΕΣ if ay “them as. : g00d : things, ooo tha 7 


happens without God. Σ 


IV.—1, My child, him ae to thee the - 


and day, and thou shalt honor him as the Lord, 
for whence the authority [There is a play on the 
words in the original! “The lordship . . 
the Lord.” The sense is: ‘‘Where the Lord’s 
word is spoken, there the Lord is. 
whence the Lord’s person speaks,” ‘‘J. W.,’ 

The Guardian.] is spoken, there the Lordi is. 3 


find refreshment in their words. 


shall be or not. 
soul.” 
come or not.”] 5. Be not a stretcher out of the 
hand in reference to rec¢iving, and a withdrawer 
of the hand in reference to giving. 6. If thou 
hast, with thy hands thou shalt give a ransom 
forthy sins. 7, Thou shalt not hesitate to give 


know who the good Repayer of the reward is. 
sharers in that which is immortal how much 
more in mortal things. 
the fear of the Lord. 

come to call with respect to persons, but [he comes] 


to those whom the Spirit has prepared, 11. And ye 


away. 14, In the church thou shalt confess thy 


word of the Lord shalt thou keep in mind night - 


ἧς om | 


Seek daily the faces of the saints,that thou mayest | 
8. Thou shalt — 
cause no division, but rather pacify those quar-_ 
reling ; thou shalt judge justly, thou shalt ποὺ 
respect persons in reproving for faults.-4. Thou | 
shalt not be of doubtful soul, whether [a thing] — 
(‘Thou shalt not bea double ~ 
Harnack thinks it should be rendered: | 
‘‘Doubt not whether (God’s judgment) will 


| 
| 


nor shalt thou murmur in giving, for thou shalt 


8. Thou shalt not turn away the needy man, but — 
share all things with thy brother, and thou shalt — 
not say that they are thine own; for if ye are — 


9, Thou shalt not with- — 
hold thine hand from thy son or from thy 
daughter, but from youth thou shalt teach them — 
10. Thou shalt not com-— 
mand thy servant or thy maid, who hope in the | 
same God, in thy bitterness, lest they cease to 
fear the God who is over both, for he does not 


servants be obedient to your masters as to the | 
type of God,in reverence and fear. 12. Thou shalt 
hate all hypocrisy and everything that is ποῦ 
pleasing to the Lord. 13. Thou shalt not neg-— 
lect the commands of the Lord, but keep what 
thou hast received, neither adding nor taking — 


faults and thou shalt not come to thy prayer 


with an evil conscience. 
Life. 

V.—1. But the Way of Death is this ; first of all 
it is evil and full of curse: murders, adulteries, 
lusts, whoredoms, thefts, idolatries, conjura- 
tions, poison-makings, robberies, false witness- 
ings, hypocrisies, double-heartedness, deceit, 


This is the Way of 


pride, wickedness, self-sufficiency, avarice, base-_ 


speech, envy, impudence, high-mindedness, 


boasting. 2. Persecutors of good men, hating — 


truth, loving lying, not knowing the reward of 
᾿ righteousness, not joined to that which is good 
nor to just judgment, attentive not to that which — 
| is good, but to that which is evil, from whom 
‘meekness and patience are afaiy loving vain | 


things, hastening after revenge, not pitying the 
poor, not laboring with them that arein dis- 
| tress, not knowing him that made them, mur- 
(dering children, destroying what kine has 


| 
| 


“formed [1 
form: ὦ ᾿ 


[ 


| 


= 


veieds Sie : 


jus born, the other killing the unborn child.’ ed 
distressing the | 


ing away the needy, 
op ressed, helpers of the rich, lawless judges of 
the poor, sinning in every way. Withdraw your- 
selves, children, from all these people. 

VI.—1. See that no man cause thee to errfrom 


this Way of the Teaching, since he teaches thee 
without God, 2. 


1 If then thou art able to bear 
all the yoke of the Lord thou shalt be perfect; 


but ifthou art not able, wnat thou art able this 
do. 


3. Concerning food, endure what thou art 
able. But keep thyself carefully from that 


which is sacrificed to idols, for that is the ser 


vice of dead gods. 
τ Among the points to be noticed in these 
opening chapters we mention a few. 

The Way of Life is the Way of Acts ix,- 


2; xix, 9, 28; xxii, 4; xxiv, 14, 22; and 


the two Ways are the broad way and the 
narrow way of Matthew. 


©. Fasting as well as praying for enemies is |.————— 


commanded. But fasting and prayer are 


so closely connected in the Scriptures that 
it is not clear that this means anything | 
more than praying. Stilithe germ of a 


heresy may be found here. 


᾿ς The commands for liberality in giving are 
very emphatic, and the cerrelative com- 
mandto be slow to receive benefactions 
shows that a class of lazy paupers were at- 
taching themselves to the Church. The | 


| 


_we say that one’s hands ¢éch to give. 
| The grossness of the sins against which 


candidates for baptism are warned indicates | 
the terrible wickedness of the world about 
them. Murder, adultery, infanticide, feti- 
cide, poisoning, and nameless sins are in- 


cluded. 


| 
| 


There seems to be the germ of a later 


heresy in the paragraph which declares that 
beneficence provides a ransom for sin. 
The confession of sins ‘‘in the Church,” 


that is, in the congregation, is yet a great 


way off from the auricular confession of 


_the later days. 


The tolerance given to those who are. 


“not able” to keep all these command- 


ments is noticeable, as also the strict pro- 
hibition of the use of food offered to idols. 


| This shows a stricter rule than Paul cared 


! 


to enforce. 

The instruction οἵ these six chapters | 
seems to have been repeated to the can- 
_didates, who were, very likely, required to 


' commit it tomemory. It is marked for its 
| purely ethical chars 


wacter. This is most 


n- | of the answers in the Episcopal Catechism, 
“ the- one is. παῖε. be itd lespecially the long one beginning, ‘“‘ My 


| duty toward my neighbor is, to love him 


origin of the quotation ‘‘Let thine alms | 
‘sweat in thy hands until thou know to 
whom thou mayest give” is not known. So. 


; Tenuous and imperative, and reminds one 


as myself. » All the theological doctrines 
which one can gather from this portion are, 
that ‘there is ὃ God: who made us and who 


| loves all men, who hears prayer, to whom 


‘we must * give account”; that ‘‘ without 
God nothing occurs”; that there is a 
“word of Goa” which is ‘‘spoken” (read- 
ing not mentioned); that the Spirit leads 
men into the truth; that “the Lora” 
(Christ) has given ebrimeandments to be 


obeyed, which must neither be added to nor | 


taken from (thus perhaps still orally trans- 
mitted). This is all. Theology is still im- 
plicit, not yet explicit; and being a Chris- 
tian means accepting Christ as Messiah and. 
teacher, and obeying his great command of 
love to God and self-sacrifice for men 


ey, 


“THE WAY.” 


we have to comment in order this week, 
appears the passage (in the Revised Ver- 
sion), ‘‘Some were hardened and disobe- 
dient, speaking evil of the Way.” It would 
appear that a particular manner of life or 
teaching had come to be distinguished es- 
pecially as ‘‘the Way” of these new and 
peculiar people. That chapter from the 
Acts does not tell, in any definite terms, just 
what ‘‘the Way” was; but it is interesting 
to notice what definition of the term is 
given in this newly discovered document, 
the ‘‘Teaching of the Apostles,” dating 


from the time when some of those were: 


still living very possibly, or at least their 
children, against whose ‘‘ Way” those who 
were hardened and disobedient spake evil. 

The first six chapters in the ‘‘ Teaching” 
are devoted to a definition of ‘‘ the Way,” 
and under this very designation of *‘ the 
Way of Life” in opposition to ‘‘ the Way of 
Death.” The ‘“Teaching” begins with 
these words: 

“Two Ways there ure, one of Life and one of 
Death ; but there is a great difference between 
the two Ways. The Way of Life then, is this, 
first, thou shalt love God who made thee; 
second, thy neighbor as thyself, and all things 
whatsoever that thou wouldst not haye done to 


thee, do not thou to another,” 
“Then follow the teachings of this Way in 


particular, forbidding resentment and re- 


| taliation in the language of the Sermon on 
the Mount; requiring prodigality in giving 
and abstinence in receiving; 
“been said ‘Let thine alms sweat in thy _ 


‘¢for it has 


= 


ng 
In the Sabbath-school lesson, on which: ae 


Fe - 


(hands aay thou know to to whom thou shalt 7 


{ | r 
εἰς give them.’” The Way of Life, we are. ᾿! ἡ “from the ends. οἵ ἐδ earth into thy king. 
| further told at much length, forbids mur- |] 

H ders, lusts, magic, child-murder, falsehood, |) 


“ covetousness, malice, arrogance, hatred, 
" jealousy, contentiousness, and requires 
- meekness, gentleness, humility and guile- 
᾿ | lessness. One who follows the Way must 
honor them who speak the word of God, 


ig 


vants, must hate hypocrisy, must confess 
his sins, must hold fast to our Saviour’s 
Commandments, and must pray with a 
clean conscience. ‘‘This is the Way of 
Life.” 

Then follows a description of the other 
Way, the Way of Death. It is the Way 
of ‘* murders,adulteries, lusts, fornications, 
i thefts, idolatries, magic arts, sorceries, 


all this instruction, which was given to 
candidates for baptism, concludes with the 
_ | warning: ‘‘See that no one lead thee astray 
from this Way of the Teaching.” 

What is noticeable above everything 
else inthis description of the Way is that 
‘itis exclusively ethical. It reads like the 
Epistle of James. There is in it no 


this whole treatise, the earliest of the 
Church manuals, is incidental. What it 
emphasizes, and what was then wanted in 
| the Church, was notso much sound be- 
lief as a radical reformation in the life. In 
this. whole introductory portion, defining 
the instruction to catechumens, we are sur- 
prised to find the mention of not even 
one distinctively Christian belief; nothing 
more than the moral teachings of Christ. 
| But these are taught so uncomprowmisingly 
| that only a converted soul could accept 
them. The Way, as here taught, says no- 
thing about anything beyond downright 
repentance, conversion and consecration. 
Only in the latter, ritual portion come in 
| the Chistian doctrines, and still only inci- 
dentally. The ritual duties having to do 
with baptism, the Lord’s Supper, and the 
officers of the Church are fully described; 
but we are left only to infer the Trinity 
from the baptismal formula. The prayers 
with the Lord’s Supper give thanks in gen- 
eral terms for tbe lifeand knowledge which | 
thus hast made ‘‘known to us through 
_ Jesus, the servant,” and for the “knowledge | 
and faith and immortality which thou 
hast made known to us through Jesus, thy 
servant;’ for food and drink, physical and | 
Lae and me offer Renton: that 


eer ΒΨ Βα ees 


nor grudge his gifts, but must share with | 


the needy. He must be gentle with ser- 1] Lord; but in these earlier and purer days 


πον τ Ἢ ame, As 


a hy Ch hurch. ΤῊ ay p — a ; Be _ 


dom” ; that. τ "grace may come, . and this 
ord: may pass away”; but they say noth. . 
ing of the Atonement, nor even the cruci- | 


of fie Church, it was distinguished from 
the world, in its own consciousness, chiefly 
in the way that Christ said it should be. 


‘By their fruits shall ye know them.” |. 


|| Their Way was the way of good fruits And. 4 


robberies, false testimonies,” etc., etc. And | 


ger --- 


a holy, beneficent , life. , - Pages 
“THE TEACHING OF THE “APOS- 


TLES.” Lew & δ 


THe great discovery in Church history | 


| which we announced last week is of such 
| capital importance that we recur to it for the 
_ purpose of indicating more pa ticularly the 
| bearing of some of its parts. We may here 
| correct.the evident error of ‘‘ 18838” for 
1884, in the date of the number of the Lit- 
eratureeitung, from an advance copy of 


which we took our account. 
theology. Whatever theology appears in |, 


The discovery of so capital a document, 


going back to the first half of the second | 


century, and of so special a character—we 


might call it a directory of worship—makes | 


this an annus mirabilis in Church history, | 
/perhaps a more important year than 1851, 


which was, we believe, the year of the pub-- 
lication of the long-lost ‘* Philosophumena” | 


of Hippolytus, and of the ‘‘ Sic et Non” of 


Abelard. Of the genuineness of the new 


document we think there can be little’ 


doubt. It is fully accepted by Harnack, | 
the best patristic scholar living. Then. 


there is in it that peculiar quality which a 


scholar will recognize which is. beyond 
forgery. It contains so much which is un-_ 
expected and fresh, and yet which harmony 
izes so admirably with everything before 
known, and it is so simple, so consistent, 
that the most accomplished scholar could 
not have forged it, and certainly not a 
member of the Greek Church. There is no 
Shapira trick possible in the treatise. 
Perhaps the most striking point in the 
whole is its description of baptism. While 
some portions are not qtite clear in their 
meaning, it is clear that the manner of bap- 
tism was regarded asa matter of mere con- 
venience. Running water was preferred, 


| 
| 
| 


as ina stream, otherwise standing water, as a 


in a pool, otherwise warm water, or, finally, 


Sioa 


fixion, not a word of ‘‘the blood.” Doubt- ! 
less a great deal else is silently assumed, as | 
one Can be assured by the quotations from 
Matthew, Luke, and Paul, even the whole | 


system of faith through a dying and risen | 


| 


| 


; | as well as a law of fasts; that the Lord’s 
| frmerdian was Pe hai eicn, ididnach there | Day is observed, and not the Jewish Sab- 
_ 4s nothing to forbid it. But it was not’ yah; and that the resurrection only of the 
' considered necessary, and the language is righteous is assured. Beyond this, we 
quite in harmony with the opinion of those | notice the simplicity of faith and order. 
who believe that the earliest baptism was The tendency to ceremonialism and formal 


by affusion, the candidate standing in the ἐν religion had begun, but had proceeded but 
water, by which the feet were cleansed, and . a little way. τρῇ 
having it poured with the hand upon | We may return to. this subject again 
the head; and that total immersion when we receive the full Greek text. Espe- 
_ was an early development of the strong © cially do we desire to see those first six 
tendency to magnify the ritualism of chapters which embrace the doctrinal 


the Church. Τῇ, in this respect, our doc- | teaching given to applicants for baptism, 
ument proves that the immediate success- | ------ 


ers of the apostles laid no stress on Immer- f The pening Post discusses the philosophy of 


SSS 


the much more important point of believ- of the “‘Teaching of the ae It tells the 
| ers’ baptism it appears to take the position , tery: 

be no hint of the practice of infant baptism ' German theological journal, attracted the attention 
The catechumens who had received the in- York, who published an English translation of this 
‘struction. required could hardly fail to in- | German version. As soon as the text of Bryennios 


clude children of believers as well as con- | Was received, professors in several institutions set. 

verts from heathenism. about its republication in this country. The New 

Re ny tant. neint iow f th York professors were first in the field with their edi- 
P ΡΥ as OO © | tion of the Greek text, accompanied by a translation 


Church orders. We find, to our surprise, | lowed, almost the next day, with an independent 

apostles continuing in the Church. But it | translation! and a scholarly critique. A Baltimore 

is plain that bishops have nothing to do professor at once gave four lectures on the text, 
5 fo) 


| ete.” 
with them. Bishops are quite a different ; 
thing. The apostles are nothing else than The Post’s explanation is that there is ingrained 


itinerant missionaries, who may stop for a | tation of ancient doctrine, and that ‘the ex- 
day or two to visit a local church, but whose | treme ecclesiastical party, the Episcopal, has: 
business it is to be off on the outposts | professed to be rehabilitating early usages,” 
preaching to the keathen. They are not as also Methodists and Irvingites (!) and that 
an order in the Church, any more than are | all these elements combined in giving an eager 
prophets, who are mere local exhorters, | Welcome to the document. Our explanation of 
‘moved by the Spirit. And the function of the phenomenon is partly in the same line. It 
‘both apostles and prophets seems to be 


Oaed sue ΩΝ Ἦν ἮΝ cat core | importance and value were‘instantly evident..We 
ὦ ΠῚ ne Bo GY Os y, instantly gave it attention fitting its importance, 
say “in the Spirit,” they were yet to be | tp the most emphatic way possible we advertised 
carefully tested and guarded against. the Christian world that this was the most re- 

Two orders existed in the churches, markable discovery of the age, and we published 


diately of the publication of the document. Its 


ee 


churches. The bishops are simple pastors | Sy that we are notin the habit of giving cur- 
over a church and not over a diocese. | Trency to silly frauds, and our announcement at- 
Presbyters are not mentioned, whence | *@cted universal attention. Before our first 
it seems that the double designation of the | *™20wncement was published, we had privately 


; informed a theological professor of the discov- 
office of , inform 8 
pastor employed in.the Acts and ‘ery. He instantly engaged the first copy of Bry- 


ED ee Hag proved cumbrous, and the -ennios’s Greek text which should reach New 
single name of bishop was retained. The | York, Only one came, and from that copy Pro- 
bishops and deacons were chosen by the | fessor Hitchcock’s edition was prepared. We 
churches, just in what’way is not stated so | also wrote to Jehns Hopkins that this new werk 
far as yet appears. was interesting to students of stichometry. 80 

Among other points we notice that the | the ‘‘ Baltimore Professor” got another very 
cup, in the Eucharist, is given still to the || 9411} Copy. But no one could expect to get the 
laity; that baptism is an invariable pre- start of Ezra Abbct. Scarce had we announced 


| cer 29 
| requisite to the Communion; thatiitine the Teaching” before a copy of Bryennios, 


se uh aE EaCIOH OF Baptist ene sprung” ap; | 


_ sion, if, indeed, they practiced it at all, on . the great general interest taken in the discovery : 


now held by the Baptists. There seems to “ A translation of the text, given by Harnack in a , 


of the editor of a week. religious journal in New ᾿ 


present differences is the light it throws on | and brief comments. The Andover professors fol- 


in our religion a Puritanism which is ἃ rehabili- - 


was no accident by which we learned imme~_ 


bishops and deacons, both elected by the | the translation in our editorial columns. We can 


the first in the country, reached him. It was : 


4 


: 


from that copy that we published the ‘Greek 1 Ὁ: 


the chapter on Baptism. It was from that. 
copy that the Andover translation was made, and 
its issue in a monthly journal delayed it till the 
date of the appearance of Union Seminary edition. 
The first explanation of the attention given to 
the document is that the public happened to be 
somewhat authoritatively informed about it in 
these ways. Then comes the patent fact that 
Protestants claim to gather their Christian faith 
from the teachers of the first century, and this 
gave an extraordinary source of information as 
to what was taught in the first century, and it 
touches everybody. It is a manual of Church. 
teaching and order. It has to do with 
just the questions on which denominations 
differ. It describes baptism. It gives the 
liturgy for the Lord’s Supper. It lays down 
the duties of the officers of the Church. It 


swe have noticed, only 
has published a translation, with not a | 
of comment, and a Nashotah Professor has | 
ed ἃ warning against it; The document will ! 
‘Hot trouble scholarly and liberal Bpiscopalians, | 
| who admit that apostolic successioii is tionséuse, : 
‘and that episcopacy was a development—and 
‘none the worse for that—of the second century. | 
But itis a blow between the eyes to Roman | 
Catholics and to “rehabilitating” Ritualists. | 
Why, it makes the ‘sacrifice’ of the Eucharist | 
diol aii offering of Christ, but an offering to 
_ Christ of food, a8 a peacé Offering. Its simplicity 
‘is the very antithesis of all formalism in exeed or 
| worship or government. | eel 
....The American public know of Philothéos | 
Bryennios simply as the learned Bishop of 


ΚΕ ΟΣ ἊΣ 


Wor 


Nicomedia, who has discovered and edited the | 
complete Greek texts of the two epistles of | 
Clement of Rome, and the ‘Teaching of the 
Apostles.” But he is not only a scholar, but a 
fervent and active Christian man. Two years 
ago he published a very admirable work of 360 
pages, on the more urgent ecclesiastical reforms 
needed in the Greek Church, and on the means 
of resisting the encroachments of the Church of 
Rome. The Greek Synod, which lately met in 
Constantinople, has expressed its approval of 
the views of the distinguished prelate and 
scholar, and directed that his work should be. 
! printed and distributed at its own exnonen f 


a Ee eT ee δον : 
TES Mion ῶ Atak ete 
Si koe | ine ΟΣ 2 2 


_has @ very clear bearing on questions of bish- 
Me ae apostolic succession. It has a hundred 
‘points of modern, present interest. It could 
not but attract great attention as soon as the | 
public was once informed emphatically about it. | 
But the Post is mistaken in supposing that the 
Episcopalians have had much to say about it, 
They have been almost utterly silent, while the 
Roman Catholive baye not opeaed their mou ths. 


χά (ee 


oer’ 


Among the many remarkable recoveries of long- | 
lost ancient documents which this century has wit- 
nessed, there is none which has awakened a more 
immediate and more wide-spread popular interest. 
than the discovery of the “ Teaching of the Apostles,” | 
a catechetical treatise of the early Church, known to. 
us hitherto chiefly through references to it by Clem-| 
ent of Alexandria, and such later writers as Euse- 
bius and Athanasius. Clement, who flourished about 
the end of the second century, cites the Teaching as 
Scripture, but it is expressly excluded from the canon 
by later writers. The fortunate discoverer of this 
document is the learned Bishop Bryennios of Nico- | 
media, in Asia Minor; and the ‘place of discovery 
was Constantinople. The Greek text was recently 
published, with full prolegomena and notes in modern 
Greek, by Bishop Bryennios, and The Independent, 
‘Which was the first of American journals to announce 


the publication, gave a translation of Chapters VII. | 
to XVI. This translation lacked somewhat in exact» | 


ness, however, being made (owing to the necessities 


. published, nee ae of Ἐ τ εἰ 


ἴῃ the Andover Review ; Gardiner, in The Church- 


man; and Hitchcock ahh Brown in the edition of 
The Breachino. published, in, Greek and English, by 
Charles Scribner’s Sons. On account of the popular 
interest in this remarkable document, as well as in 
the inter-denominational discussions to which its dis- 
covery has given a fresh stimulus, we devote the 
larger part of our Books and Writers department 
this week to a full and independent translation of 


| the whole treatise from the original Greek. It is 
| believed that this translation is more exact than any 
| other now before the public. One or two illustra- 


tions may be given. In Chapter XVI., the phrase 
rendered by us “from under the curse itself” (see 


| Rev. 22 : 3) is left untranslated by Harnack (and by 


The Independent, following Harnack), while, by a 
very natural] mistake, Starbuck’s translation, excel- 


lent as it is in many respects, here gets the blasphe- 


mous sense, “ by him, the Curse,” referring to Christ. 
There is also a lack of accuracy in Hitchcock and 
Brown’s version, which is most easily seen in such 
errors as the translation of hupomené (endurance, 
patience) by “ BUOY α and of mias é duo (one or 
two) by “two or three.” The date of the original 


| document is commonly set between 120 and 160 A-D., 
|and this makes it the earliest Christian manual of 
| church polity extant, outside of the New Testament 


Sd 


we ——— 


itself. | 
THE TEACHING OF THE TWELVE 
APOSTLES. 
THE LOED’s TEACHING THROUGH THE TWELVE APOSTLES TO THE 
NATIONS, 


[Translated for The Sunday School Times. ] 


CHAPTER I. Two ways there are, one of life and one of 
death, but a wide difference between the two ways. The 
way of life, then, is this: First, thou shalt love God who 
made thee; second, thy neighbor as thyself; and all 
things whatsoever thou wouldst should not occur to 
thee, thou also to another do not do. And of these say- 
ings the teaching is this: Bless them that curse you, 


_and pray for your enemies, and fast for them that per- 


secute you. For what Hale [is there], if ye love them 
that love you? Do not also the Gentiles do the samé? 


_ But do ye love them that hate you; and ye shall not 
_ have anenemy. Abstain thou from fleshly and worldly 
lusts. If one give thee a blow upon thy right cheek, 
turn to him the other also; and thou shalt be perfect, 
_If one impress thee for one mile, go with him two. If 


one take away thy cloak, give him also thy coat. If one 
take from thee thine own, ask it not back, for indeed 


δι, 


bestow of his own free gifts, ‘Happy [is] he that giveth | 


J for to all is the Father willing hi a 


according to the commandment; for he is guiltless. 
Woe to him that receiveth; for if one having need 
receiveth, he is guiltless ; but he [that receiveth] not. 
having need, shall pay the penalty, why he received and 
for what, and coming into straits (confinement) he shall 
be examined concerning the things which he hath done, 
and he shall not escape thence until he pay back the 
last farthing. But also now concerning this it hath been 
said, Let thine alms sweat in thy hands, until thou 


know to whom thou shouldst give. 


CuHap. II. And the second commandment of the 
Teaching: Thou shalt not commit murder, thou shalt 
not commit adultery, thou shalt not commit pederasty, 
thou shalt not commit fornication, thou shalt not steal, 
thou shalt not practice magic, thou shalt not practice 
witchcraft, thou shalt not murder a child by abortion 


nor kill that which is begotten. Thou shalt not covet 


the things of thy neighbor, thou shalt not forswear thy- | 
self, thou shalt not bear false witness, thou shalt not | 
speak evil, thou shalt bear no grudge. Thou shalt not 
be double-minded nor double-tongued ; for to be double- | 
tongued is a snare of death. Thy speech shall not be, 
false, nor empty, but fulfilled by deed. Thou shalt not. 
be covetous nor rapacious nor a hypocrite nor evil 
disposed nor haughty. Thou shalt not take evil coun- 
sel against thy neighbor. Thou shalt not hate any man, | 
but some thou shalt reprove, and concerning some thou | 
shalt pray, and some thou shalt love more than thy 
own life. 

Cup. III. My child, flee from every evil thing, and 
from every likeness of it. Be not prone to anger, for 
anger Jeadeth the way to murder; neither jealous, nor 


‘quarrelsome, nor of hot temper; for out of all these 
murders are engendered. My child, be not a lustful 


one; for lust leadeth the way to fornication; neither a. | 
filthy talker nor of lofty eye; for out of all these adul- | 
teries are engendered. My child, be not an observer of 
omens, since it leadeth the way to idolatry; neither an 
enchanter nor an astrologer nor a purifier, nor be will- 
ing to look at these things, for out of all these idolatry is | 
engendered. My child, be not a liar, since alie leadeth | 
the way totheft; neither money-loving nor vainglorious, 

for out of all these thefts are engendered. My child, be | 
not a murmurer, since it leadeth the way to blasphemy ; 

neither self-willed nor evil-minded, for out of all these 


_blasphemies are engendered. But be thou meek, since 
_ the meek shall inherit the earth. Belong-suffering and 


pitiful and guileless and gentle and good and always 


trembling at the words which thou hast heard. Thou 


shalt not exalt thyself, nor give over-confidence to thy | 
soul. Thy soul shall not be joined with lofty ones, but 
with just and lowly ones shall it have its intercourse. 
The workings that befall thee receive as good, knowing | 
that apart from God nothing cometh to pass, 


' Crap, IV. My child, him that speaketh to thee the | 


οὐ hin as the ἘΠῚ ‘for [in awe place] eines iotaly 
tule is uttered, there i is the Lord. And thou shalt seek 
out day by day the faces of the saints, in order that thou 
mayest be refreshed by (or, rest upon) their words. 
Thou shalt not long for division, but shalt bring those 
| who contend to peace. Thou shalt judge righteously, 


thou shalt not respect persons in reproving for transgres- | 


| sions. Thou shalt not be undecided whether it shall be or 


j no. Be nota stretcher forth of the hands to receive and a | 


| drawer of them back to give. If thou hast [aught], 
through thy hands thou shalt give ransom for thy sins. 


Thou shalt not hesitate to give nor murmur when thou | 


givest ; for thou shalt know who is the good repayer of 
‘the hire. Thou shalt not turn away from him that is in 
want, but thou shalt share all things with thy brother, 
‘and shalt not say that they are thine own; for if ye are 
_partakers in that which is immortal, how much more in 
things which are mortal? Thou shalt not remove thy 
hand from thy son or from thy daughter, but from [their] 
youth shalt teach [them] the fear of God. Thou shalt 
not enjoin aught in thy bitterness upon thy bondman 
or maidservant, who hope in the same God, lest ever 
they shall fear not God who is over both; for he cometh 
not to call according to the outward appearance, but 
‘unto them whom the Spirit hath prepared. And ye 
_servants shall be subject to your masters as to a type of 
God, in modesty and fear. Thou shalt hate all hypocrisy 
and everything which is not pleasing to the Lord. Do 
thou in no wise forsake the commandments of the Lord ; 
but thou shalt keep what thou hast. received, neithed 
adding thereto nor takingtherefrom. In the church thou 
shalt acknowledge thy transgressions, and thou shalt not 
come near for thy prayer with an evil conscience. This 
is the way of life. 

CHap. V. And the way of death is this: First ofall 
it is evil and full of curse: murders, adulteries, lusts, 
fornications, thefts, idolatries, magic arts, witchcrafts, 
rapines, false witnessings, hypocrisies, double-hearted- 

| ness, deceit, haughtiness, depravity, self-will, greediness, 
filthy talking, jealousy, over-confidence, loftiness, boast- 
fulness; persecutors of the good, hating truth, loving a 
lie, not knowing areward for righteousness, not cleaving to 
good nor to righteous judgment, watching not for that 
which is good but for that which is evil; from whom 
meekness and endurance are far, loving vanities, pur- 
suing requital, not pitying a poor man, not laboring for 


derers of children, destroyers of the handiwork of God, 
turning away from him that is in want, afflicting him 
that is distressed, advocates of the rich, lawless judges 
‘of the poor, utter sinners. Be delivered, children, from 
‘all these. 

| CHAP. VI. See that no one cause tree to err from 
this way of the Teaching, since apart from God it 
: teacheth thee. For if thou art able to bear all the yoke 
_of the Lord, thou wilt be perfect; but if thou art not 


“a 


the afflicted, not knowing him that made them, mur-. 


ο 
| able, what thou art able that do. And concerning food, 


“pear what thou art able; but against that y hi 
ficed to idols be exceedingly on priest guard; f for 
service of dead gods. 


Bee Χο 

Cuap. VII. And concerning baptism, has haptics 
ye: Having first said all these things, baptize into the 
name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy 
Spirit in living water. But if thou have not living! 
water, baptize into other water; and if thou canst not in 
cold, in warm. Butif thou have not either, pour out water 
thrice upon the head into the name of Father and Son | 
and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the bap- 
tizer fast, and the baptized, and whatever others can; but 
thou shalt order the Repeat to fast one or two days 
before. 

Cuap. VIII. But let not your fasts be with the 
| hypocrites; for they fast on Monday and Thursday ; but 
do ye fast on Wednesday and Friday. Neither pray 
-as'the hypocrites; but as the Lord commanded in his 
| gospel, thus pray: Our Father who art in heaven, hal- 
‘lowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be | 
done, as in heaven [so] also upon earth. Give us to-day 
our daily (needful) bread, and forgive us our debt as we 
forgive our debtors. And bring us not into temptation, | 
but deliver us from evil; for thine is the power and. 
the glory for ever. Thrice in the day thus pray. 

_ CHap. IX. Now concerning the Thanksgiving (Eu- 
_charist), thus give thanks. First, concerning the cup: | 
We thank thee, our Father, for the holy vine of David 
thy servant, which thou madest known to us ‘through | 
Jesus thy Servant; to thee be the glory forever. And 


concerning that whieh is broken: We thank thee, our 


Father, for the life and knowledge which thou madest , 
known to us through Jesus thy Servant; to thee be the 


glory forever. Even as this which is Renken was scat-_ 


tered over the hills, and was gathered together and 

became one, so let thy church be gathered together from. 

the ends of the earth into thy kingdom; for thine is the 

glory and the power through Jesus Christ forever. But let 

no one eat or drink of your Thanksgiving (Eucharist), 

but they who are baptized into the name of the Lord; for | 
indeed concerning this the Lord hath said: Give not that 

which is holy to the dogs. 

Cuap. X. But after ye are filled, thus give thanks, 
We thank thee, holy Father, for thy holy name which 
thou didst cause to tabernacle in our hearts, and for the 
knowledge and faith and immortality, which thou 
madest known to us through Jesus thy Servant; to thee 
be the glory forever. Thou, Master almighty, didst 
create the whole world for thy name’s sake; thou gavest 
food and drink to men for enjoyment, that they might 
give thanks to thee; but to us thou didst freely give 
spiritual food and drink and life eternal through thy 
Servant. Before all things we thank thee that thou art 
mighty; to thee be the glory forever. Remember, 
Lord, thy church, to deliver it from all evil andto make 
it perfect in thy love, and gather it, sanctified, from the 
four winds, into thy kingdom, which thou hast prepared 


for it; for thine is the power and the glory forever, — Let 
ear τ thie = = 
εν Terr Ae, τ νας. 


Dern μὰς pty 


AN cw it 


race come 4 this world _ pass away. Hosanna | } 
He Son of ‘David. Whoever. is holy, let him come; Ni 
Whoever is not so, let him repent. Marantha. Athen! i 
But permit the prophets to make Thanksgiving as much ἢ 
as they desire. | 
Cuap. XI. Whosoever, therefore, cometh and teacheth 
you’ all these things, which have been said before, 
receive him. Butif the teacher himself turn and teach 
another doctrine to the destruction of this, hear him not; 
‘but [if he teaches] so as to increase righteousness and 
the knowledge of the Lord, receive him as the Lord- 
But concerning the apostles and prophets according to 
the decree of the gospel, thusdo. Let every apostle that 
cometh to you be received as the Lord. But shall not 
remain [except] one day; but if there be need, also the 
next; but if he remain three days, he is a false prophet. 
And when the apostle goeth away, tet him take nothing 
but bread until he lodgeth; but if he ask money, he is a 
false prophet. And every prophet that speaketh in the 
Spirit ye shall neither try nor judge; for every sin shall 
| be forgiven, but this sin shall not be forgiven. But not 
every one that speaketh in the Spirit is a prophet; but ἢ 
| only if he hold the ways of the Lord. Therefore from ] 
their ways shall the false prophet and the prophet be i 
known. And every prophet, who ordereth a meal, in 
‘the Spirit, eateth not from it, except indeed he be a false i 
prophet; and every prophet who teacheth the truth, if = 
he do not what he teacheth, is a false prophet. And 7. 
vevery prophet, proved true, working unto the mystery of Ἵ 
the church in the world, yet not teaching [others] to do “ 
what he himself doeth, shall not be judged among you: fi 
for so also did the ancient prophets. But whoever saith i 
in the Spirit: Give me money, or something else, ye ᾿ 
‘shall not listen to him; but if he saith to you to give ἢ 
for others’ sake who are in need, let no one judge him. 


CHAP. XII. But let every one that cometh in the 
name of the Lord be received, and afterward ye shall 
prove and know him; for ye shall have understanding 
right and left. If he who cometh is a wayfarer, 
assist him as far as ye are able; but he shall not remain 
with you, except for two or three days, if need be. But 
if he willeth to abide with you, being an artisan, let him 
work and eat; but if he hath no trade, according to your 
understanding see to it that, as a Christian, he shall not 
live with you idle. But if he willeth not so to do, he is ἢ 
a Christ-monger. Watch that ye keep aloof from such. if 


Cuap. XIII. But every true prophet that willeth to if 
abide among you is worthy of his support. So also a | 
true teacher is himself worthy, as the workman, of his 
support. Every first-fruit, therefore, of the products of ! 
wine-press and threshing-flour, of oxen and of sheep, ἷ 
thou shalt take and give to the prophets, for they are 
your high priests. But if ye have not a prophet, give it 
to the poor. If thou makest a batch of dough, take the 
first-fruit and give according to the commandment, So 
also when thou openest a jarof wine or of oil, take the 
first-fruit and give it to the prophets; and of money and 

| clothing and every possession, take the first-fruit, as it Ἵ 


em good to thee, and give accordin; 
‘eommantiment. 3 δἰ eee bok: 

Cuap. XIV. But every Lord's dey’ ΟῚ ye Ruka your- ἡ 
selves together, and break bread, and give thanksgiving, \ 

‘ter Having confessed your transgressions, that your 
| perifice may be pure. But let no one that is at variance 

ith his fellow come together with you, until they be 
j jeonciled) that your sacrifice may not be profaned. For | 

iis is that which was spoken by the Lord. In every place | 
and time offer to mea pure sacrifice; for I ama great 
King, saith the Lord, and my name is wonderful among 
the nations. | 

Cuap. XV. Appoint, therefore Nor vourseiyce bishops | 
and deacons worthy of the Lord, men meek, and not 
lovers of money, and truthful and proved; for they also 
render to you the service of prophets and teachers. 
Despise them not therefore, for they are your honored 
ones, together. with the prophets and teachers. And 
reprove one another not in anger, but in peace, as ye 
have it in the gospel; but to every one that acts amiss 
against another, let no one speak, nor let him hear aught 
from you until he repent. But your prayers and alms 
and all your deeds so do, as ye have it in the gospel of 
our Lord. 

Cuap. XVI. Watch for your life’s sake. Let not 
your lamps be quenched, nor your loins unloosed ; but 
be ye ready, for ye know not the hour in which our 
Lord cometh. But.often shall ye come together seeking 
the things which are befitting to your souls: for the 
whole time of your faith will not profit you, if ye be not 
made perfect in the last time. For in the last days false 
prophets and corrupters shall be multiplied, and the 
sheep shall be turned into wolves, and love shall Oe: 
turned into hate; for when lawlessness increaseth, they | 
shall hate and persecute and betray one dnpthes and 
then shall appear the world-deceiver as Son of God, | 
and shall do signs and wonders, and the earth shall be 
delivered into his hands, and he shall.do iniquitous 
things which have never yet come to pass since the 
beginning. Then shall the creation of men come into 
the fire of trial, and many shall be made to stumble and 
shall perish; but they that endure in their faith shall be 
saved from under the curse itself. And then shall appear 
the signs of the truth; first, the sign of an unrolling in 
heaven; then the sign of the sound of the trumpet; and 
the third, the resurrection of the dead; yet not of all, 
but as it 15 said: The Lord shall come and all his saints 
with him. Then shall the world see the Lord coming 
upon the clouds of heaven. 


“νον. 


«ὐονξ 


THACHING OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES. 


Sir—The treatise διδαχὴ σῶν δώδεκα ᾿Αποσσόλων, which was ably 
reviewed in your columns some three or four months ago, seems 
to be attracting increased attention, and we are indebted to 
Archdeacon Farrar for a translation of it in the Contemporary 
Review for this month. Would you permit me to place before 
your readers one or two matters connected with it which seem 
to have escaped notice? 

The date of its composition has been assigned by the editor, 
Bishop Bryennios, to about the middle of the second century. 
Dr. Farrar, without giving any particular reason, considers it 
as written at the very beginning of that century. Another leading 
scholar, I am told, considers it to have been composed much 
earlier, say A.D. 70 or 80. From internal evidence and com- 
parison of its contents with those of the Apostolical Epistles, 
I should certainly say that the earliest of these dates is in all 

probability nearest to the truth; for, having attentively read it 
many times, I cannot conceive that it could have been written 
after either St. Paul or St. John had made his mark on the 
doctrine of the Church. For though one or two isolated phrases 
may be produced, which seem to resemble some expressions in 
St. Paul’s or St. John’s Epistles, yet the whole tenour of the treatise 
' shows that it could not have been written by one who in the 
least degree realised the view of the Gospel taken by either of 
these Apostles. 

For it is a fact that in this treatise, evidently intended by the 
author to be a summary of Apostolic teaching, we have not a 
single reference to those truths which are called the doctrines of 
| grace. There is, for instance, not only no reference to the 
sacrifice of our Blessed Lord upon the Cross, or to His Blood 
shed for the remission of sins, but there is absolutely no refer- 
| ence to the Death of Christ at all. The writer literally might 
not have heard of it. In fact, there is not a single mention of 
| Redemption throughout the book. Besides this, there is no 
reference whatsoever to the Holy Spirit as regenerating, or 
renewing, or sanctifying, or purifying the heart. No reference 
| to the intercession of Christ, and no allusion to that very 
peculiar truth so characteristic both of Pauline and Johannian 
Christianity—the truth that the Christian is “in” Christ and 
Christ “in” the Christian. 

Now, this ignoring ‘“‘ of the Death of Christ and of the 
benefits which we receive thereby,” in a treatise which professes 
to be an embodiment of Apostolic doctrine, is simply amazing, 
when we consider that there are in the book (chap. ix.) two 
thanksgiving prayers—(Archdeacon Farrar, I think, wrongly 
| calls them consecration prayers)—one for the Cup, another for 
| the Bread, of the Eucharist. Besides these there is closely 
following upon them a third Eucharistic thanksgiving, a remark- 
able effusion of mingled piety and poetry, from which all 
reference to the Lord’s Death is unaccountably absent. Arch- 
deacon Farrar has a characteristic note on the first of these :— 

“The Eucharistic consecration prayer is as significant for what it 
| says as for what it leaves unsaid, and cannot but have weight in 

modern controversies. There is nota gleam of anything distantly 
resembling or approaching the doctrine of Transubstantiation, or 
any analogous doctrine, nor is there even a reference to the words, 
- | ‘This is My Body,’ ‘This is My Blood.’ ”’ 
But why does the Archdeacon stop here, and not tell us that the 
| prayers ignore the death of Christ? _ 
| Now, surely, if the Lord instituted the Eucharist in the words 
|“ This is My Body,” “This is My Blood,’ which from the four 
accounts of it in Scripture He certainly did, then any so-called 
consecration thanksgiving which takes no notice of such words, 
' or of the reconciling death which the institution commemorates, 
must be simply non-Christian, There may be one or two 
Christian ideas embodied in these thanksgivings, but since the 
truth to which the Eucharist witnesses, the death of Christ and 
_our particular reception of the benefits of that death, is excluded, 
_the prayer or thanksgiving, so far as the Eucharist is concerned, 
is, I repeat, non-Christian. 

__ Now, supposing that the author wrote, say, in the year 100, 
he must have known the Synoptic Gospels. Archdeacon 


᾿ 
__ : Se 


Varvar 6 says that Te Ἔπδν St. “Matthew and | St. He mus 
have known, then, that the Lord said, “ Do this i in oye ἘΠῚ ΤᾺ 
of Me”’—i.e., of course, ‘of My dying for you.’ He must also} 
have known at least the earlier Kpistles of St. Paul, and amongst: 
them that to the Corinthians, containing the account of the 
original celebration received from Christ Himself—containing » 
the Eucharistical reference to the death of Christ in the words, | 
“Ye do show the Lord’s death till He come;’’ containing also 
the Eucharistic teaching, “ The cup of blessing which we “bless 
is it not the communion of the Blood of Christ?” ὅσο. (1 Cor. x.) ;, 
also the reference to ‘“‘ Christ our Passover being sacrificed for 
us” (1 Cor. v. 7). If, then, he was a Christian teacher—I will 
not say an orthodox Christian, because the word is so disliked, 
but I will say a teacher according to the mind of that Spirit 
Who we all believe inspired St. Paul—could he have written 
a treatise on the doctrine of the Apostles and avoided all refer- 
ence to Christ’s death for sin? or could he have written of the 
Eucharist in seeming unconsciousness of its reference to the 
same all-reconciling Death? 

St. Paul, whatever men thought of him and of his teaching, | 
must have been certainly by far the most widely known teacher 
of the Church in his day. He was abundantly known to. 
the Jewish branches of it from his constant visits to 
Jerusalem. He must have been well known to all the Gentile 
Churches, at least in Europe and Asia Minor, for he founded 
most of them and spent his life travelling among them. It 
must have been known far and wide that he “had credentials as 
direct from Christ Himself as those of any of the Apostles, and 
that he instructed the Churches by Epistles which the Judaisers 
themselves acknowledged to be “‘ weighty and powerful.” If, 
then, in the year 100 A.p. a Christian professing to write a 
treatise upon Apostolic doctrine knows nothing of St. Paul’s 
writings, it must be either through ignorance of God’s greatest 
movement in the Church since Pentecost, in which case he must 
of course have been totally incompetent to take upon himself to— 
write a book with such a title and with such pretensions; or he 
must have disliked the Pauline view of Christianity, and 
probably denied the Apostleship of St. Paul, as, I need not say, 
a Jew of Palestine was not at all unlikely to do. 

From such considerations I cannot help thinking that this 
treatise must be either ante-Pauline or anti-Pauline. I would 
earnestly hope the former, for the writer must have been a very 
pious, God-fearing man, having an earnest zeal of God, though 
certainly not according to the knowledge of God and of Christ | 4 
set forth in the writings of SS. Peter, Paul, and John. By e 
ante-Pauline I do not, of course, mean before the time of St. 
Paul’s Apostleship, or even his martyrdom, but before his, 
doctrine had permeated the Church, It had certainly made its 
place in the theology of the Church before the end of the first 
century; for we have in the Epistle of Clement to the Corin- 
thians (generally considered the oldest of uninspired Christian 
writings) several distinct quotations from St. Paul’s Epistles, 
and very many more distinct references to their contents. | 

The omission of all reference to Christ’s death in the 
Kucharistic thanksgivings seems so extraordinary that I have 
been led to question whether they were really Eucharistic in the 
sense of referring to the Lord’s Supper, whether they were not. 
thanksgivings—i.e., eucharists, over ordinary meals, and whether 
they do not show that at that earliest period, even ordinary 
meals had more of the character of the Agapé than ‘at later 
times. And two other considerations seem to lead this way. 
One that the third thanksgiving is to be said ‘‘after being 
satisfied’? (Mera τὸ ἐμπλησθῆναι), which seems to imply a meal 
for the satisfaction of the hunger of the body rather than of the 
soul; another, that at nearly the end (chapter xiv.) there is a 
much more specific reference to the Kucharist as the speciality 
of the Lord’s Day, and the fulfilment by the Church, as such, of 
Malachi i. 11-14. 

I have mainly directed attention to the divergence between 
the views of the writer of this treatise and those of St. Paul, 
because St. Paul directly refers to the Eucharist as intimately 
connected with both the Body and Blood of the Lord and with 
His Death; but the same difference is manifest if we take the 
First Epistle General of St. Peter—the Apostle, be it remem- 
bered, of the Circumcision. There is nothing in the Didaché in 
the least degree answering to such an expression as “‘ Obedience 


ἣν 
ἐπ 


-fand sprinkling of the Blood of Jesus Christ,’ nothing a 
| parallel to “ Ye know that ye were not redeemed with corrup- 
|tible things, . . . . but with the precious Blood of Christ, 
188 of a Lamb without blemish and without spot.’ In fact, the 
treatise from beginning to end has no trace of that Evangelical 
truth respecting the efficacy of the Blood and Intercession of 
Christ and the sanctifying power of the Spirit, which, no matter 
᾿ ΒΟΥ in these latter days it may have been perverted or 
distorted, is the foundation of all the Christian’s hope for the 
forgiveness of his sins and the subduing of his heart to God. I 
know no Christian treatise purporting to give an account of 
practical Christianity so utterly unevangelical in the highest 
and best and most unsectarian sense of that much-abused word. 
In writing this it must be understood that I do not for a moment 
advocate the notion that every short treatise on religion must 
contain a reference to every truth of the Gospel. I repudiate : 
altogether such bondage. But in a book written professedly to 
give an account of the doctrine of the Apostles to find no 
reference to the death of Christ or to the redemption it effected : 
is a caution to receive the book for what it is worth, and as a ] 
testimony to the teaching of the Catholic Church at the end of 


the first century it seems to me to be worth very little. 

But it is probable that the book is of considerable value in 
the matter of Christian antiquities, as representing the Judaical 
phase of Christianity at its best. And if so, it goes far in 
explaining the extraordinary energy with which St. Paul, the 
great Apostle of grace, repudiated that teaching. The book 
teaches the law pure and simple, and applies the law as if it 


‘could give life, which it cannot (Gal. iii. 21),—the law, I grant, | 
at times very practically and spiritually stated and applied, but Ϊ 
still the mere law, without any reference to any promise of Ϊ 
forgiving, or regenerating, or sanctifying, or strengthening 
grace. For instance, there is but one reference that I remember 
‘to the forgiveness of sins, “If thou hast (this world’s goods) 

thou shalt give with thine hands, as a ransom for thy sins,”’ and 

in.a note the Archdeacon refers to Daniel iv. 27, which, taken 

strictly, is not much to the point; but surely some notice should 

be taken of the doctrine of the real Apostle St. John in 

1 John i. 7-10, of St. Peter in 1 Peter ii. 24, of St. Paul in 

Col..i. 20, 21. 

There is but one Epistle in the Sacred Canon which seems to | 
resemble this Didaché in its non-doctrinal character, the Epistle | 
of St James. In_it Archdeacon Farrar tells us, “We do not. 

_ | find one direct word about the Incarnation, or the Crucifixion, or 

‘the Atonement, or justification by faith, or sanctification by the | 
Spirit, or the resurrection of the dead ;” but there is.this differ- 
ence: St. James’s Epistle is not given to teach its readers the 
doctrine of the Apostles. On the contrary, it is taken for 
granted that they had been before instructed in and held or 
continued in “the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of 
Glory’ (James ii. 1). It was rather written to console and 
support those under persecution, but both the Treatise and the 
Hpistle evidently belong to the same undoctrinal, undogmatic 
type of Christianity, and as this type passed away towards 
the end of the century it seems probable that the dates of the 
two documents are not very far apart from one another. 

And now to proceed to another point—Church organisation. 
The reference to this in chapters xi., xii., xiii. is exceedingly 
interesting, and in one respect, at least, very useful to contem- 
plate, for it sets before us the picture of a ministry as self- 
denying and as unworldly as we have in all Church history. 
There were then persons called apostles, whose ministry was 
itinerant, but instead of remaining two or three years in a 
place, as itinerant ministers amongst us do, they remained but 
two days. If they remained in any place three days they 
were to be accounted false prophets. We read in the 
same chapter xi., ‘“‘When the apostle departs let him take 
nothing except enough to last till he reach his night’s quarters. 
If he ask for money he ig a false prophet.” This seems to take 
Whee to Ae Bias αἱ things ordered by the Lord Himself, 

rovide neither gold nor silver nor br: i rses ”’ 
(Math. =. 9) 80 or brass in your purses 

The Church organisation of this treatise carries us back to 
the time when missionaries were called apostles, as in Rom. 
xvi. 7., Phil. ii. 25; but it ig especially interesting as bringing 
before us the ministerial action of “the prophets,” an order of 
men to which there has been nothing corresponding since the first 


oy Baa. cll = ed ΒΡ ν᾿ ΝΎ ΝΎ ΡΟ ΨΥ, ΠΥ Κ᾿ awn — τ ων. τ πο εἰδῶν. = P ees 
| century in any branch of the Church, or in any body of | - 

Christians, except amongst some fanatics, as the Montanists, |) 

the Anabaptists of Munster, and another sect to which I shall 

presently allude. The names of “apostle’’ and “ prophet” 

seem to be interchangeable. And yet, though the rule is appa- | 

rently so strict that an apostle is not to remain above two days 

in any place on pain of being accounted a false prophet, yet 

in the very next chapter [ xii. ] special provision is made to ensure 

the man a maintenance, if he wishes to settle permanently in 

any place. In chapter xv. they are told to appoint Bishops | 

(that is, we suppose, overseers of congregations) and deacons, | 

but nothing is said of the particular duties of these Bishops and 

deacons. They seem to exercise only the same ministry as 

the prophets. “They, too, minister to you the ministry of 

the prophets and teachers.” Altogether, the organisation, if 

such it can be called, is of the loosest kind, and in every point 

seems in the sharpest contrast to that into which the Church, | 

guided, no doubt, by the Holy Spirit, has finally settled down. 

But there are one or two points about the ministry as repre- 

sented in this book which deserve mentioning. One, that it | | 

retains the name of apostle; another, that its most important | ᾿ 

ministry by far is the prophetical. The state of things here } 
_ described, or rather hinted at, here appears in the main the same 

as that which prevailed at the time when the First Epistle to 

he Corinthians was written; and which, at the time of the 

writing of the Pastoral Hpistles, seems to have given place 

to a more localised or settled ministry, in which apparently 

the prophet has no specified place. 

There has been, as most of us probably know, a remarkable 

_attempt made in the nineteenth century to reproduce or resus- 
‘citate this ministry of prophets—viz., by the Catholic Apostolic 
| Church, commonly called Irvingism. In this body the prophet, 
at least at first, was much more important than the apostle, 
because, as I understand, it was by the prophets that the 
apostles were designated; but the issue has not been en- 
couraging. 

It is not my purpose to enter into many matters of very great 
interest connected with this Didaché, such as, for instance, its | 
relations to the Seventh Book of the Apostolical. Constitutions ; | 
but I cannot help making a remark upon a view of the latter book, | 
taken by Archdeacon Farrar, which seems to me unfair. He 
designates the Seventh Book as “ double-dyed with the spirit of | 
the falsarius,’’ because the contents profess to be taken down from 
the mouths of the Apostles.* No doubtitisa “ pious” fraud, but 
does not the same accusation lie against a man who in the year | 
100 professes to write a ‘‘ Doctrine of the Apostles,’ taking no 
notice of what the real Apostles had written? 

With respect to the Scripture quotations in this curious book } 4 
Archdeacon Farrar writest :— | 

“The large majority of his Scriptural quotations seem to be made 
from memory. The Gospels which he seems to be best acquainted | 
with are those of St. Matthew and St. Luke. The main allusions to | 
St. Matthew are to the Sermon on the Mount, or to the closing 
chapters. Scarcely one of them is verbally accurate, which implies | 
that the writer did not actually possess a manuscript of the Gospel, | 
and had not one at hand for the purpose of exact quotation.” | 

Here, then, isa man who at the end of the first century, when } 
the first three Gospels had been published thirty or forty, one 
perhaps fifty years, had not a copy of a single one (though he 
might have written one fairly out in a fortnight), and who only 
now and then peeps into those of hig neighbours, yet sits down 
to write a book with the title, ‘‘ The teaching of the Lord by the 
Twelve Apostles to the Gentiles.” | 

In conclusion, I do not see how the book can be used with any |} 
honesty against Catholic truth. Its utter absence of ‘‘ dogma,” | 
which some will hail with satisfaction, really amounts to a | 
complete absence of all promise of divine grace, whether | 
expressed in words or embodied in sacraments. | 

Baptism is mentioned and the water specified that it should | 
be running water, or, if need be, warm, but not a word about its | 
having any meaning. The Eucharist, as we have seen, is men- 
tioned, but without a word of its connection with the all- | 
reconciling Death. | 

There is one to me very remarkable passage in the few last 
. ,sentences—an allusion to the first resurrection of Phil. iii. (the | 


ie setante ad 


’ “a 


* In the Expositor for May, p, 381, + In the Expositor for May, p. or oT 
— sh SAR TSOAS Aap EGR τοτ 0 0 — = -- --------.-.-- ee 


ἢ exanastasis), In the words—-" Lhe third sign, the .tvesurrec 
‘of the Dead; not, however, of all, but as hath been said, ‘ The | 
Lord shall come, and all the saints with Him.’ ” 


M. F. SADLER. 


bye + ἐπ νι: Ἢ kets τ ὼ a 
cae THE TEACHING OF THE APOSTLES Oped 


~ Sir—The great interest felt in the new MS. is widely 
expressed, but if “the discoverers and all the critics profess 
themselves unable to interpret’? any one of its sentences, he 1s 
to be praised who shall solve the difficulty. ΜῈ 

The true meaning of the paragraph containing the words 
σοιῶν εἰς μυστήριον κοσμικὸν ἐκκλησίας involves the construction first, 
and, secondly, the deduction claimed therefrom. 

1. In reply to Mr. Birks I venture to suggest that his transla- 
| tion is very trying— making garniture of a church for a sacra- 
| mental celebration,” and I doubt that the French word will, as 
here used, commend itself. 

I offer no translation, my main concern being with the deduc- 
| tion so confidently drawn from the paragraph by Mr. Birks, but 
I may just remind brethren that ἐκκλησιάζω means to cal an 
assembly or congregation, and so does ἐκκλησίαν wate. M hether 
| κοσμικὸν is an adjective or a substantive may be doubtful. Of 
course, “if it were a Greek substantive 1b must have appeared 
in Greek”? (!) before its supposed Hebrew form, but that trans- 
| literation does not really prove even so much as Middleton 
allows. It may be an adiective, as in a similar construction, 
and with another word, ποιῶν ναοὺς ἀργυροῦς, Acts XIX. 24, The 
governing word seems to be σοιῶν, and ib is, both in subject 
| and construction, analogous to St. Luke xxu. 19, ποιεῖτε εἰς 2. 65 
“π'οιῶν εἰς. ὌΝ ee eri 

Now, it is remarkable that κοσμικὸν 15. an infrequent word, 
used only twice in the New Testament ; but ib is noticeable that 
Josephus has the phrase κοσμικῆς λατρείας, Which accords with, 
and perhaps in some measure accounts for, the applicaticn of 
| the word in question to Church functions, and to the μυσπήριον, OF 
Holy Sacrament. , fi 

If the word be an adjective, then it would mean ordered ” 
‘or “fair” (“the fair beauty of His temple”), or “ dignified.” | 

The use of the word in the form κόσμιος in 1 Tim. ii. 9 and iii. 2 is | 
remarkable. 

2. With somewhat more confidence I venture to doubt Mr. 
-Birks’s inference—viz., that the Didaché shows (contrary to the 
'preface in the Ordinal) that there were in the Church “two 
orders and two orders only . . . . and not three orders 
|. . . . asin the Epistles of Ignatius.” 

It is a commonplace of students to know that the names 
** Bishop, priest, deacon,’’ as now used, are later than “the 
Apostles’ time ;” but the thing—three orders—was there “it is 
evident’’ from the first, and we were so taught to distinguish 
when preparing for ordination. 

The Didach?, I think, strongly confirms this truth, for it 
shows one, called a “prophet” or “ Apostle” (applied to the 
same person), as supreme in order and doing a Bishop’s proper 
work of rule and oversight in the Church, with two orders 
inferior to him. 

The names of the three orders were not distributed in the 


New Testament times. St. Paul the Apostle was also called 
“deacon ;” ‘‘ Apostles’? were, as in the Didaché probably, any 
messengers of the Churches, and ‘ Bishops” and “ presbyters ”’ 
_were the same (Titus i. 5-7). In the cases of SS. Timothy and 
Titus even, specialisation does not yet appear, but it seems 
likely that the Didaché gives “the missing link,’’ showing a 
third order to which some belonged, “‘ prophets,’’ who though 
ordering and ruling have as yet no name of office in the New 
Testament. 

If this conjecture be sound then the very early date of the 
Didaché is confirmed ; it contains a picture of Christian Church- 
life in, or close upon, the days of SS. Timothy and Titus, and 
it may throw light upon Ephesians iv. 1l—‘‘He gave some 
apostles, and some prophets. . . . .” 

If the Didaché be not a forgery its very early date is almost 
a necessary conclusion, for Ignatius wrote from his settled 
bishopric at Antioch, describing a settled order of the Church, 

} with ‘ Bishops, priests, and deacons”’ of unquestioned obligation, 
jand it is next to impossible to imagine the Didaché could 


dedcription of the same settled order. 

So early a document is invaluable; bnt in proportion to 108. 
valne is the importance of care and accurate handling in its 
interpretation: One remarkable coincidence is evidential— 
viz., that the Didaché and Pliny’s Letier to Trajan agree in_ 
representing the Holy Sacrament as being the supreme object. 
(in the days of one "ΟΥ̓ more of the Apostles) of the early | 
Christians, in “the assembling of themselves together.” 

Woodleye, Farnborough, June 13, 1884. W. Ε΄. Hopson. | 


Sir—Is Mr. Birks sure that the ritual he speaks of (the | 
breaking the middle one of three loaves, and laying by one. 
portion till the meal is over) is not more recent than the institu- 
tion of the Holy Hucharist? 

It is said to be in representation of a portion of the Paschal, 
lamb which used to be kept to be partaken of when the meal 
was ended. 

My only authority at hand is Bickell, Messe wnd Pascha, and 

ΒΘ refers to Maimonides as saying that, during the existence of 
the Temple, two loaves sufficed. HENRY DE ROMESTIN. 

Freeland Parsonage, June 12, 1884. 


5 wa Ved Lina - Man 2 $8 


| THE - LESSONS OF THE TEACHING OF 
THE ὍΝ rier 


| 


BY PROFESSOR vinnie gcfrare, Do 4. LL.D. 


| 
‘Since the discovery of the Sinaitic manuscript of the 
Bible; in the convent of St. Catharine, at the foot of the 
Mount of Legislation, by the German Professor Tischen- 
dorf, in 1859, no literary discovery has created such a 
sensation in the theological world as that of the Teach-. 
ing of the Twelve Apostles, by the Nicomedian Metro- | 
politan Philotheos Bryennios. A book written, in all 
probability, before the close of the first century, Be Chris- 
᾿ tian of the second generation, and [professedly] summing | 
up the teaching of the apostles on faith and morals, on bap- 
tism, the Lord’s Supper, public worship, church polity 
and Ajsniolan’, in fact, a complete church manual, excited 
the curiosity of all denominations and sects. Garman | 
French, English, and American divines fell on the pre- : 


cious morsel with a ravenous appetite. Book after book, 
essay after essay, appeared since its first publication at 
Constantinople, in December, 1883, and the theme is not 
yet exhausted. 

Nowhere has the interest been more extensive and 
more practical than in the United States. All denomi- | 
nations and parties have tried to make capital of it for | 
their favorite theories and practices. Psdobaptists 
found in it a welcome argument for pouring or sprink-. 
ling, as a legitimate mode of baptism ; Baptists pointed 
triumphantly to the requirement of immersion in living. 

| water as the rule, and to the absence of any allusion to 
infant baptism; while the threefold repetition of im- 
_mersion, and the requirement of previous fasting, suited 
neither party. Episcopalians were pleased to find 
bishops and deacons (though no deaconesses), but non- 
Episcopalians pointed to the implied identity of bishops 
and presbyters:; while the traveling apostles and 
prophets puzzled the advocates of all forms of ‘church’ 


: overnment, “The friends of liturgical worship derived 
aid and comfort. from the ‘eucharistic prayers, and the 
| | Prescription to recite, the: Lord’s Prayer three times a 


| prophets’ ” are permitted to pray 38 long-as they plate 
after the eucharistic sacrifice with which the Agapé was 


| connected. Roman Catholic divines found traces of. 
| purgatory, and the daily sacrifice of the mass, but not a 
‘| word about the Pope and an exclusive priesthood, or the 
1 worship of saints and the Virgin, or any of the other 
1 distinctive features of the papal system; while another 


Roman Catholic critic depreciates the Didache as a pro- 
duct of the Ebionite sect. Unitarians and Rationalists 
were pleased with the meagreness of the doctrinal teach- 
ing, and the absence of the dogmas of the Trinity, incar- 
nation, depravity, atonement, etc.; but they overlooked 
the baptismal formula and the eucharistic prayers, and 
the fact that the roots of the Apostles’ Creed are at least 
as old as the Didache, as is proven by the various Ante- 
Nicene rules of faith. Millenarians and anti-Millena- 
rians have alike appealed to the Didache with. about 
equal plausibility. i 
_ We must look at the Didache, as on any other his- 
torical document, impartially and without any regard to 
‘sectarian issues. It is, in fact, neither Catholic nor 
Protestant, neither Episcopalian nor anti-Episcopalian, 
neither Baptist nor Pzedo-Baptist, neither sacerdotal 
nor anti-sacerdotal, neither liturgical nor anti-litur- 
gical; yet it is both in part or in turn. | It does not fit 
into any creed or ritual or church polity or church 
party of the present day; yet it presents one or more 
points of resemblance to Greek, Latin, and Protestant 
views and usages. It belongs, like the writings of the 
apostolic fathers, to a state of transition from divine 
inspiration to human teaching, from apostolic freedom 
to churchly consolidation. This is just what we must 
expect, if history is a living process of growth. 

The Didache claims no apostolic authority; it is sim- 
ply the summary of what the unknown author learned 
either from personal instruction or oral tradition to be 
| the teaching of the apostles, and what he honestly 
| believed himself. It is anonymous, but not pseudony- 
} mous; post-apostolic, but not pseudo-apostolic. Its 
| value is historical, and historical only. It furnishes us 
| important information about the catechetical instruc- 
| tion and usages in the age and country where it was 
written, but not beyond. It takes its place among the 
| genuine documents of the apostolic fathers so called— 
| Clement of Rome, Polycarp, Ignatius, Barnabas, Her- 
| mas. These writings fill the gap between the apostles 
| and the church fathers, from the close of the first to the 
middle of the second century ; just as the Apocrypha of 
‘the Old Testament fill the gap between Malachi and 
| John the Baptist. 

The following is a summary of the historical lessons 
of the Didache as regards the state of Eastern Christian- | 
ity in the post-apostolic age: 


Eee one 


τ ROMP eG bis Sige WET Ne 3 Pee es oes vg 4 as a prepara- Ὁ 
tion for: church-membership:. ὁ 9°04 ππττ τς 
2. That instruction was chiefly moral and practical, — 
and based upon the Decalogue and the Sermon on the > 
Mount. No doubt, it included also the main facts in the 
life of Christ, for the document assumes throughout — 
faith in Christ as Lord and Saviour, and repeatedly — 
refers to his gospel. ; 3 
- 8. The moral code was of the highest order, far above 
that of any other religion or school of philosophy. It 
was summed up in the royal commandments of supreme | 
love to God and love to our neighbor, as explained by 
the teaching and example of Christ. The superior 
morality of Christianity in theory and practice carried 
in itself the guarantee of its ultimate victory. ? 

4, Baptism was the rite of initiation into church-mem- 
bership, and was administered by trine immersion in a 
river or fountain, but with a certain freedom as to the 
quality of the water and the mode of its application; 
pouring water three times on the head being allowed as 
legitimate baptism in case of scarcity of water. Fasting 
before and after the act was required ; but no oil, salt, or 
exorcism, or any other material or ceremony, are men- 
tioned. . 

5. The Eucharist. was celebrated every Lord’s Day in | 
connection with the Agapé (as at Corinth, in the time 
of Paul), and consisted of a fraternal meal, thanksgiy-_ 
ings, and free prayers for the temporal and spiritual 
mercies of God in Christ. It was regarded as the Chris- 
tian sacrifice of thanksgiving to be offered everywhere — 
and always, according to the prophecy of Malachi, - | 
_. 6, There were no other sacraments but these two. At | | 
least, none is hinted at. : | ie 
| 7. The Lord’s Prayer, with the doxology, was repeated _ 
; three timesa day, This, together with the eucharistic = 


1. Catechetical instruction was 


thanksgivings, constituted the primitive liturgy; ust | 
freedom was given to free prayer from the heart in p 
; ae 
ἦρεν ‘hat day of the week was celebrated as a 
Lord’s Day, in commemoration of his mapa ni! 
public worship and the copraae ang Wednesday ἃ 
ri ere observed as days of lasting. 
Maco church at large was governed by payee 
apostles or evangelists, who carried the gospel to ae 
known parts; by prophets, who were either Bares ot 
stationary, and instructed, comforted, and revived 889) 
converts; while the local congregations were ere ‘| 
by bishops (or presbyters) and deacons, elected and sup 
Christian people. ΡῈ 
ματος τινι the Wades of the apostolic writings, Ἔν | 
especially the Gospel of Matthew, were more or a 
known,-and their authority bee τοι but there was | 
led canon of the Scriptures. “t) 
ht Re the gospel tradition, nothing of any | 
importance was known concerning Christ and the apos- 
tles. The Didache, only one extra canonical sentence 
of uncertain authorship (I. 6), possibly a reported say- / 


hi "bint Ἦν Be ἢ oan | ὟΣ eee : ae 
As Bishop πεν δὴ says, «ἈΠ the ΑΣΑ Βἢ mation 
80 far as we ean trace it, is found within τ aig corners 
| of our canonical Gospels.” 

| 12. The Didache furnishes aqodles soot of ie infinite 
superiority of the New Testament over ecclesiastical lit- 
erature. Interesting and important as it is, it dwindles 
into insignificance before the Epistle to the ον ᾿ 


which is of about the same size, or the Sermon on the 


Mount, of which it is an echo. 4 


of 


th θωάίοιος τ 


ΟΣ “LY Ud. 


THE “DOCTRINE OF THE APOSTLES.” | 


In the Presbyterian of March 15th was published an 
extract from the Independent with regard to the book 
entitied “ The Doctrine of the Apostles,’ lately discov- 
ered and published by ths metropolitan bishop Bryen 
nios of Nicomedia. The discovery of this long lost 
ancient work is an event of more than ordinary inter- 
‘est, and deserves a more extended notice. The fact 
that such a book existed in the early church had long 
been known through references to it in the works of 
Clement of Alexandria, Athanasius, and other early 
fathers; but until its recent discovery by Bryennios it 
had been supposed to be hopelessly lost. Of the edi- 
tion just issued by the bishop Professor Harnack, of 
Giessen, has lately published a review, with a German . 
translation of a part of the book, in the Theologische : 
Literaturzeitung, from which we gather the following 
‘facts. 

The composition of the book must be assigned to a 
date between 120 and 160 A.D. It therefore takes 
rank with the oldest writings which have come down 
to us from the primitive Gentile Church. In the ex- 
tract from the Independent, previously published, it 
is, for example, shown conclusively that according to 
the writer of this book, “The Doctrine of the Apos- 
1168 did not make immersion essential to baptism. 

Other matters may be mentioned on which the testi | 

mony of this primitive work is of no less consequénce. 

Thus, as regards the question of the polity of the early 

church, “ The Doctrine of the Apostles” agrees with other 

authorities of the same age in recognizing no church 
officers but bishops (plainly not diocesan) and deacons. 

| Much is said of the “prophets,” showing that the gift 
of prophecy, as mentioned in the New Testament, was 


LL Ὁ 


ἐεποπν πα 


But these “ prophets” ‘are, 


not represented as officers edddiitital to the constitution 
of the church. The case is supposed that there might 
in a church be no prophet. We read also of “ apos- 
tles,” but they are not regarded as the special succes-| 
sors of the twelve—rulers over lower orders of the min- 
istry-—as the High-church theory would have it. In 
this work the word oniy denotes travelling preachers, | 
a sense of the word which already appears here and 
there in the New Testament. (Acts xiv. 4; 2 Cor. 
Vill. 23, εἰ passim ) | 
Once again the testimony of this witness from nthe 
primitive Gentile church is of special interest as re- | 
gards the question whether, according to apostolic 
teaching, a millennial age of righteousness was to be 
anticipated before the second coming of our Lord, and 
whether the resurrection of the righteous is to be ex- 
pected as simultaneous with that of the wicked, or is to 
precede the latter. As toa millennium of righteous- 
ness before the Lord shall come again the work before | 
us, like other authorities of the second century, knows | 
nothing. On the contrary, it describes the last days, 
very fully, after the manner of Paul and John, (2 
Thess. ii; 2 Tim. iii.; 1 John ii. 18, &c,) as evil days. | 
We are tld, according to Professor Harnack’s trans- 
lation, that in the last days “the tempter of the world 
will appear, as if he were the Son of God, and the world 
shall be delivered into his hand . . . and all mankind 
shall come into the fire of trial, and many shall be 
offended and perish.” Then we read:-—“Then shall | 
appear the signs of the truth; first, the sign that, the 
heaven sha!l open; then the sign of the trumpet-blast; 
thirdly, the resurrection of the dead—not, however, of 
all—but, as it is said, ‘The Lord will come and all the 
saints with him.’” By this writer of the primitive 
Gentile church, therefore, it is. explicitly taught that 
according to the doctrine of the apostles the resurrec- 
tion of the wicked will not be simultaneous with that 
of the righteous. 
- One other fact brought out by this book deserves 
notice. Professor Harnack, in the article to which 
we have above referred, calls attention to the complete 
demonstration which the publication of this book 
affords, that the so-called Apostolical Constitutions, 
which have figured so much in discussions touching the | 
doctrine and polity of the primitive church, are in 
fact, as had been long suspected, a corrupt and inter- 
polated compilation of a comparatively late period. 
: Book VIT. of the Constitutions proves to be simply this 
ancient Doctrine of the Apostles, deliberately and sys: 
tematically altered, wherever necessary, to make its 


ee 


: support the beliefs and practice of a later 


ex 


-age. Thus, wherever the original work has the word 
“prophets,” the author of the Constitutions has substi- 
tuted “ priests;” in suitable places he has inserted, in 
addition to the words “bishops” and “deacons,” the 

ord “presbyters”—which, in the original document, 
does not occur—thereby passing’ off the three fold | 
order of bishops, presbyters, or priests and deacors as 
of apostolic authority. The directions as to the ad- 
ministration of the sacraments are also modified by the 
interpolation of various Ritualistic precepts. The 
original reference to the mode of baptism is omitted 
altogether. In the above-cited passage concerning the 

| second coming of our Lord, after the words “resurrec- 

tion of the dead,” the compiler of the Constitutions 

omitted the restricting phrase, “ Not, however, of all,” 
adding other phrases, so as thereby to expunge the 
doctrine of a prior resurrection of the righteous, and 
bring the teaching of the primitive document into 
agreement with the doctrine concerning the millennium 
} and advent which by that time had come to be gener- 
ally accepted in the church. 

It is with good reason that Professor Harnack re- 
marks in his review, that “we do not possess another 
so elegant and instructive illustration of the art of 

| transforming an old writing” as we have in this chap. 
vii. of the Apostolical Constitutions, with its studied 

| and systematic alteration of this primitive Doctrine of 
_the Apostles. Comment on the above facts is needless. 

5. H. KeLLoca. | 


~~ | -was practicable,the candidate was, of course, | 
‘to be immersed. Pouring or sprinkling was — 
J at that time known as Clinic Baptism, and 
_ those who had received it were deemed in- 
| aa, τ : - eligible to the higher offices of the Church. 
sae thet y.discompred, * Teeehing of the It was allowed to beirregular even by base 
Apostles” is now before the public. Does. wo were willing to recognize it as valid. 
[it Show. that, the,.use, of pouring for bap-_ Now if the opinion shall stand that the 
| Hsmy has apostolic sanction? ‘‘Teaching” was written as early as the 
Before the recent discovery, the oldest middle of the second century, and the 
undisputed mention of the use of affusion seventh chapter be not an interpolation, we 


ΒΌΥΝ 


| 


= ---.---- 


THE BRYENNIOS DOCUMENT AND 
THE ACT OF . OF BAPTISM. 


BY mers PIKE. a” 


was in the Epistle of Cyprian to Magnus, 
written about the year 250. Certain. per- 
sons, converted in sickness, when immer- 
sion was impracticable, had received mere- 
ly apouring. It was denied that this was 


valid baptism and the opinion of Cyprian is. 
asked. He answers at much length, and | 


-gives it as his judgment that, in a case of 
absolute necessity, pouring or. sprinkling 
may be used for baptism. It will be seen 


ataglance that the ordinary baptism of 


that time was immersion. The question 


_ whether affusion could be accepted in case 
ΟΥ̓ necessity assumed. that, when immersion 


have a mention of affusion a hundred years 
before Cyprian. But it leaves immersion 
the ordinary act of baptism in the second,’ 
as it was in the third century. ; 
The direction is to baptize ‘‘in running 
water” or ‘‘into other water’; ‘‘but if thou 


What is the meaning of the Greek word 
baptize? When the Septuagint says that 
Naaman went down into the Jordan and 
‘baptized himself (ἐβαπτίσατο) we understand 
that he dipped himself. 
means immerse in the Septuagint story of 


hast neither, pour water upon the head.” 


But if baptize - 


| Naaman, we must assume, until something — 


meaning in this place also. 
render the whole passage: ‘‘ Now, concern- 


ing immersion, thusimmerse. . . . Im- 
merse . . . in running water... + 
for]... . intootherwater.. . . but, 


if thou hast neither [in sufficient depth | 
immersion] pour water upon the- 


for 


head.” The directions cover two points; 


first, the kind of water in which the 


candidate is to be immersed--viz., run- 
ning water, if possible; second, the thing 


to be done when immersion is impossible— | 
viz., pouring water upon the head. The_ 


‘¢Teaching,” like Cyprian’s Epistle, sanc- 
tions affusion, not as the ordinary act, but 
only ‘‘ necessitate cogente.” 

The honored editors of the Scribner edi- 


‘scribed baptism ‘‘ in water” to be a pouring 
on the head, while the subject stands ankle- 
deep in water. This would make the alter- 
native to be,not between two acts—viz.,bap- 
tism on the one hand, and pouring on the 
| other, but between two positions of the 
candidate—viz., in water and out of water. 
Now it would seem strange that baptism 
and pouring, which are not contrasted, 
should both be mentioned, while of the two 
positions, the very things to be contrasted, 


only one was mentioned. If all the writer | 


meant was, that, during the affusion, the 
subject should, if possible, stand in water, 
he certainly took a very roundabout way 
of saying it. Again, if the same act is re- 
ferred to in both clauses, we may use the 
same term in both, and then we shall have: 
‘‘ Baptize in water; but if thou hast none, 
baptize,” or ‘‘Pour water upon the head 
in running [or] into other water; but if 
thou hast neither, pour water upon tke 
head.” Again, while it would not be 
difficult to understand the words, ‘‘ Im- 
merse into water” what would be meant by 
‘¢ Pour water upon the head into (εἰς) other 
water’? 

Suppose, however,that, willing to deal ten- 
derly with polemics in straits, we conceded 
that the suggested construction was not ab- 
solutely inadmissible; it would still remain 
to be proved that it was the right one. The 
presumption is that the word daptize means 
the same in this passage as in the Septua- 
gint story of Naaman. The presumption 
is that immersion which, as every writer 
allows, was the ordinary baptism in the 
third century, was the ordinary baptism in 
the second century also. Therefore, until 
something is adduced to set aside these 


} presumptions, we must translate the direc- 


is shown to the co contrary, that. i ‘it has that |} ἢ | tion before is 
We, therefore, Ἵ 


1 practiced affusion, that fact would cer- 
| tainly have been known also to Cyprian, 


| affusion; he pleads merely that sprinkling 
| is mentioned in the Old Testament. 


h | does not claim that the validity οὗ affusion 
tion of the ‘‘ Teaching,” consider the pre-~ 


18: “ΑΝ 
μοῦ. immerse pour water upon the head. » Τὴ 
| other words, the deliverance i in the ““ Teach- 
ing” is the same as in Cyprian’ 5. Epistle 
—viz., that affusion may be resorted to, | 
but only when immersion is impracticable. | 
“And that, for even this limited use of 
affusion, the writer of the ‘‘Teaching” 
claimed apostolic precedent, there is no 
ground for declaring. Had it been known 
by this writer that the apostles sometimes 


who lived buta century later. But Cyprian, 
cites no apostolic precedent for the use of 


He 


ἀξ: * 2}.... 
a ων Ὁ. a .....-...-ςςς--. Ὁ 


is beyond question, but uses such diffi- 

dent expressions as, ‘‘So far as my poor 
| ability comprehends the matter” and “1 
have shown what I think.” Heis particu-_ 
lar to say that he does not insist that others 
shall practice affusion; and, to crown all, 
he declares his willingness that those who. 
have received affusion shall, on their re- 


covery from sickness, be immersed. Now 
is it conceivable that the apostles should 
| have used pouring for baptism and yet. 
that fact have been unknown to the Church | 
of the third century? Is it conceivable 
that it should have been known that the 
apostles sometimes practiced affusion, and > 
yet its validity be denied? When Cyprian 
was doing his best to establish the validity 

of pouring, and when the mention of a sin- | 
gle case of its use by an apostle would 
have put that validity beyond all question, | 
is it conceivable that, though he knew οὗ 
such cases, he should have cited not apos- 
tolic precedent, but only Old Testament 
usage; should have. asserted its validity 
only in the most. hesitating Janguage; 
should have consented that others should 
contemn the ceremony by refusing to ad- 
minister it; and, finally, should have de- ; 
clared his willingness that an affusion, | 
which had already been administered, should 


be ignored by a subsequent immersion? 


a ee gee ---.-- - 


| 


tion, that he had no ins ee that the 
apostles ever practiced pouring and sprink- 
ling. And, if Cyprian had had knowledge. 
of such a thing, the writer of the ‘‘ Teach- 
ing” cannot have had any knowledge of it. 


the apostles ever practiced sprinkling or 
pouring, is proof overwhelming that the 
apostles never did practice them. On the 


/ &Tp ‘Immerse, but if ‘you c: can Ἷ 


Cyprian’s epistle shows, beyond all ques- | 


Cyprian’s Epistle to Magnus proving, as-it | 
does, that Cyprian had no knowledge that. | 


a > 
ὃ , Spirit.” We, there- 
: 2¢ 5 otf) Son, and of the Holy Spirit. ; 
oe 8 Cyprian approved the use : 0) pees: 
other mae pe claimed no apostolic | fore, feel no force whatever in the elaborate, 
ring, thou C1a, 
pouring, Ξ 


; ; ly elaborate, arguments of Bap- ‘ 
yriter superfluously elaborate, argumen 
oD see that the writer of } § ἢ ι ͵ 
AER Tre ists directe ; at baptize meant : 
ap Teaching” could pen the above-quoted 1 {1818 dire Cle d fo sett g A Santee es Ἴ I] 
ei i ithout claiming any apostolic | exclusively immerse. : So, as 
ac ate ‘i - did—in other applications—but in this par- 
precedent for affusion.. aed Atl ig Aa NEE ) 
Though the ‘‘ Teaching” was apparently Now ‘this: 48° perféctly~ intelligible alan: 
itten «at an early day, it contains many Now this is ] ὶ 2 
written at an ea 


᾿ ΓΤ ly 
8 ‘ guage; ¢ this languaye is, in all godly 
iti ic recept. It uage; and ; 
apostolic precep 
human additions to 


au fev oD ng us 
izer sincerity, held by not a few men among 
is , » baptizer and incerity, 
| says: ‘‘ Before baptism let the baptizer : 


the baptized for men who are most exemplary Christians, | 
pans ἀποβεν ας ἐφ : I fe re” oe ‘¢ Past and at the same time most parte 
: ἊΝ ΠΡ ane On? i) ; is lt age is sounc 
POST We Piting O Ὁ i meek scholars. If this language is § 
during the fourth and the preparation day”; pies εὰ dee te ae 
Ἢ as We as 2 σ > Is SC as 
assages : doubtless been Si 
ead ee ag Ae ritual had | Sincere in many mouths, then the position 
H *, Slaver al hé 
noted by the reader. 8 


" Bapti int of bapti Vhat 
: of Baptists on the point of baptism, ¥ 
; uni ‘hurch, and from such } °° ἢ] aC 
ΕἾΡΒΩΣ Ῥοεμμ μέ μα ἀν aie to use | 1} 105 form it properly is, cannot be main 
eye s the direc : es ἵ > 
superstition comes ᾿ ΤΥ ΡΣ τες 
| ‘ing. In the apostolic churches, as by | ba unec δ ΠΊΒ ΔΩ ἱ ins 
Lae ee is vas regarded To the right answering of that questio 
Baptists of to-day, baptism was rege g 1g μευ. 
δα ρνέλα i : Τὰ) in | the Bryennios manuscript contributes, a: 
‘ely a symbol. Be it observed tha Ἴ econ 
Tes act is absolute 1 think, some valuable help. Indeed, 
e Baptist churches, there 1s an @0s ¢ : oa Raa 
ἐπε θημϑι ition that water- lieve, and in the present paper I unc ake 
| ¢reedom from the superstition ὃ ᾽ Se ἢ σε ὟΣ 
| freedom ial to salvation No | to demonstrate, that the Bryennios me 
ie ee ae gaat the Friends script by itself alone contains conclusive 
| Christian people, aside from the age ᾽ ae 
i she | evidence 
| xe so li ater-baptism as do ess 
Sera, τ bia ἣν immersion | suy—that the looser, indeterminate, 
Baptists. They immerse when E ain eee f the word baptize had not 
icable; but when it is not, they omit } cred” sense of the ΐ alt 
ap pracucaple; pu hat | yet, atthe date of the production of the 
all baptism, without the least thought that 1 yet, at sh t, become established; that the 
τ ἜΣ " ἕ script, become este ; ‘ 
2 ἀξ AS angered there, | manuscript, be ] pte: 
the-convert’s salvaiion 1s qneans ἢ word baptize then still retained its prope 
Ni ristian people except the Friends ( apa : ime se, Of 
Wig ne aryoend di baptized as do | native force and meaning of immerse. 
3 ‘ts die unbapt as ee 4 
Re a ey the apostolic churches | course, from this, if this be made out, Ὁ 
Ue cpunariees Ve rertaa could not | will follow—and here lies the importance o 
τὖ was the same. 1€ ing i acute ΘᾺ Soe tha χρὴ ὅδε; 
" ons 1 with Christ,” baptism was dis- the point—that, much τῆς ἐπ ΩΣ eee 
ep eral! ! , ἢ . >» was not establishedin New ‘Testameu 
te ἐν ith. Βαϊ Δίου a little, the doctrine sense was not established in W 
pensed with. ὃ » | eh 
ἀν that baptism was essential Ὁ salva- ἐπα τ π΄ 
πὶ rose r to let the con- , a8 Ὁ make nee 
i nd then arose a fear sjatained ΠΣ ΕΞ eee 
ὍΣΣ a itl t something in the nature of stratiou contained ἐπι the ma = ; Ὁ Ἂς 
vee die betsy a 1 ο a the case of the plete, atthe same time that the dog ume 
water-baptism. Ands he Ca hha ia tiie ahead eee 6. 
ieee or the prisoner, when immersion shows us the sacred ee Ε ees ae 
WS Stee he Sik jently not yet actually established, it also 
sick me dive, thoy becan to resort to dently not yet ac tually e ihe ree 
one ® i ows us that sacred sense not less evi - 
δ eae d sprinkling as being akin to | Shows us that sacred sens ΤΑ pect: 
Seite ie ἘΠῊΝ y io the incipien yrocess ΟἹ becoming es- 
pouring Affusion and aspersion wowld | ly ia the incipient process « τὰ sae ὦ 
i eee Ore ἘΠῚ of in the Church | tablished. In short, there, perhaps. coul 
oy 2 ; o ) : : ies i agents aa Ps 
< Laprrr nye oe erstition that bap- | 20t be imagined a more entirely and ideally 
' the rise of the superstit τε atc cacio ke Seaicit Oe ae the truth as to 
La gs tial to salvation. And itis | satisfactory exhibition of a τὶ “Ξε 
ἂν yas essent ) salva : Fs aay aes ἘΠΕῚ» ea ΣΝ i" 
eet lic example, but to this super- | the real sense in whic Ἐπ hen ae 
npt to apo Gor : Avia the direction | word baptize,than that exhibition whic : in 
Sfition, that ave τε aby immersion is im- | expectedly is brought down to us in this in- 
i ” whe ; 7 ΑΝ Seen, oe late hee. 
in the ‘‘ Teaching,” when ἘΝῚ r upon the | teresting monumentof Christian antiquity. 
| practicable, Dowie" Let us examine the manuscript afresh, not 
head.” now for the purpose of ascertaining what 


evidence conclusive, mark, I 


** ga- 


usage as to baptism was observed by those 
... The Examiner says: whontthe document may be assumed to 
<< We would by no means express the opinion that 


ous g we only say epreser t « sage 4 be V ond reasoL able 
; 88 
he ‘ Teaching’ 1s an Ingenl us forgery ve ¢ y tha 1158 


i | 7a8 immersion, where immersion 
cument needs to be better authenticated. doubt, w Ἧ iL ig ere 
ome ae fied with too much haste and) was practicable, with pouring « 
; has been acce - “ Ὶ : ᾿ 
τ mete a water on the head w here immersion 
credulity. = : Be : 
Will it please indicate what further authentica- was impracticable—let us, [ say, examine 
sweat ascent’ the Bryennios manuscript, not now for 
tion it desires? ἢ 


the archeological question of current con 


but simply and only for 
the philological question of the curre 
temporary force and meaning 
ecclesiastical language to the 

No matter 


tempi rary usage, 


nt con- 


attaching in 
term baptize. 
. | repeat, for the moment, what 
the ancient writer and his brethren did in 
the way of baptism. ‘That is not to be our 
present inquiry. 


Our present inquiry is to 
be, What didthey mean when they used the 
word baptize? Did they mean, apply water 
ritually, in any suitable way that may be 
practicable, or did they mean immerse? 
The question is a Simple one. It is not, What 
was the thing, baptism,for the ancient writer 
and his brethren? but, What to them meant 
the word baptize? If the word baptize 
meant to them, apply water ritually, then 
perhaps it meant that also to 
he used the word. 

eventhen; forthe ‘ 


Jesus when 
By no means certainly, 
sacred” sense may have 
been acquired in the interval between 
Christ’s time and the time of the manu- 
script; whereas, if, on the contrary, the 
word meant. strictly immerse, to the an- 
cient writer with his brethren, then, not 
perhaps, but certainly, the word 


meant 
strictly immerse, in Christ’s 


mouth. For 
acquired by the 
be lost by it—except 
through accomplished 


the sacred sense once 
word, would never 
return to primitive 
usage, which accomplished return has 
never yet, even up to this living 
cecurred, though it may now 
garded as in the 


moment, 
fairly be re- 
incipient process of 


0Cc- 
The present paper is a humble 
contribution of help to that process 
not obscurely observable. 


curring. 


already 


Our immediate question 


then is, Did 
baptize, in the 


Bryennios manuscript, me 
exclusively, immerse? or did it 


an, 
mean, in 
determinately, apply water ritually? Let 
us see, 


Here is the language ; 


ΠΑΡᾺ concerning — ‘baptism, “baptize 
vay: Having taught beforehand all these thi | 
yaptize in the name of the Father, and of the | 
jon, and of the Holy Ghost, in living water. 
τ But if thou hast not living water, baptize in 
[πον water—in warm if thou canst not do if in 
sold. But if thou hast neither, pour water 
-apon the head three times in the name of the 
Father and Son and Holy Ghost. But before 
the baptism, let the baptizer and the one (to be) 
baptized, and any others who can, fast ; 
theu shalt command the one (to be) baptized to 
fast one or two (days) before.” 


Consider, in the foregoing we have a pre- 


sumably authentic ancient use of the word | 


baptize; a use, too, occurring in a distinct- 
ively ecclesiastical document. Here, 
evitably, there will be an example of the 
‘*sacred ” sense, if such an example is any- 


where to be found in the Greek literature | 


of those times. 


Let us suppose that the ‘‘ sacred” sense, | 


indeed, holds here, that baptize meant to 
the ancient writer, apply water ritually. 
Under this elastic definition the application 
might, of course, be by sprinkling. Intro- 
duce this idea, and you have a remarkable 
result. That result is the following: 

In case water abounds, you may sprinkle 
water; in case water fails, you must pour 
out water, and pour out water thrice on the 
head. 
_ Consider this, now, at your leisure. Apply 
to the problem your best efforts. 
find it impossible, ultimately and hopelessly 
impossible, to escape the foregoing reduc- 
tion to absurdity. The absurdity is inex- 
tricably, unescapably involved in the logic 


and language of this article on baptism in | 


the Byrennios manuscript, if the word 


baptize, in that ancient, ecclesiastical use | 


of it, indeed meant, apply water ritually; 


if, that is to say, it meant anything else than 


strictly and exclusively immerse. Only 
suppose, however, that baptize meant im- 
merse, and every difficulty vanishes. 
simple, so self-consistent, so self-evidencing 
is truta when you once but get at the truth! 

But here meets us an objection—an ob- 
jection made in entire good faitb. The ob- 
jector says: Look at the foregoing article 
again, the whole of it—title, conclusion, and 
all. Do we not see that the article begins, 
“Concerning baptism?” Do we not see that 
thearticle ends, ‘‘ Before baptism?” And is 


not the clause about the pouring out of | 


water on the head, embraced thus between 
two uses of the word baptism, that oblige 
jus to regard pouring out as, in the view of 
the writer, constituting baptism? 

This is a fair question, and it shall have 
_ ἃ fair answer. ᾿ 


exceptions will overslaugh the rule. 
the ‘‘sacred” sense will have quite sup. 
planted the true; a result now open to 
universal obser vattun: 
however, the exceedingly exceptional case 
| of water failing is referred to by the ancient 
| writer just in passing, merely by way of 


but | 


in- | 


| brough any influence, 
So 


the word baptize in ecclesiastical use. 
‘that fortune had not yet befallen the word 


duced. 


The fair answer is that the 
— De ae 1 


Πὰς SE TTI TI ash 


ὦ sacred "ὁ sense was now entered: ot the | 
road foward being established. The line | 
of exceptional cases henceforward will be | 
indefinitely extended, until at length the 


shen 


‘For the present, 


parenthesis. It is dismissed from thought 
as soon as mentioned, and the writer pro- | 
ceeds with choice of language uninfluenced | 
by what in its nature and relation was | 
purely parenthetical. In other words, the 
diction of the writer was here independent 
of his parenthetical insertion, precisely as, 
avery where, the syntax of any writer is in- 
lependent of such matter introduced merely 
by the way. The true relation to the article as 
a whole, of the present interjected clause, is 
capable of being very simply illustrated. 
Let it be supposed that an order is to be 
issued for the proper printing of enacted 
laws. That order might read somewhat as 
follows: 


‘‘Concerning the printing, thus print. Hay- 


_ ing first made the proper examinations, print in | 
| dinary modern type. 
| orint in antique type; if you cannot in large | 
cype, then in small. | 
You will | 


If you cannot get this, 


(In case you have not suf- | 
icient type of any sort, write in a fair, round | 
iand.) Before the printing, let the printer and 
yroof-reader carefully compare the original | 
sopy.” | 
Now here the word printing both pre- 
‘edes and succeeds the parenthetical men- | 
ion of writing. Is, therefore, printing | 
neant to include writing? Not in the least. | 
t is simply, for a specified case, an admis- 
ible substitute for printing. That is all. 
f, however, it could be supposed that, 
writing should | 
eradually, for the particular purpose of 
preserving laws, supersede printing—the ἢ 


exception thus bécoming the rule—then, at | 
length, the word printing, used with refer- 


ence to that purpose, might very naturally 


- come to mean something so large and loose 


as to include writing, too, within its scope. 
A fortune like this has actually befallen 
But 


when tbe Bryennios manuscript was pro- 
This is inexpugnably proved by 
the absurdity that flows from supposing 
the contrary. Here the absurdity is. Face — 
it again: If there is plenty of water, you 
are permitted to sprinkle; if the water is 
pod you are bound to pour. | 


. 


_ Bryennios manuscript, 


‘This result, I repeat, irrepressibly iss 

from regarding the word baptize, in the 
t, aS meaning any- 
thing else than immerse. The word bap- 
tize, therefore, means there nothing else 
than that. Immerse is thus shown to have 
been, at the date of this document, still the 
one exclusive meaning of baptize. Much 
more was immerse the one exclusive mean- 
ing of the word baptize, when Christ lived 
on the earth, and when he used the word 
to enjoin his holy rite. The ‘‘sacred” 
sense of the term is accordingly a subse- 

quent growth, and a growth springing from 
usage not conformed to the ordinance of 
— Christ. 

If this is not so, let one show me 
hiow it is not so, how escape may be had 
τ from that reduction to absurdity which I 
once more submit : 

For baptism, sprinkling of water will an. 
- swer, if Jordan rolls at your feet; pouring 
out of water is imperative, if you have but 
a tumblerfulat command. 
An absurdity which I assert to be insep 
_ arably—inseparably is the strong word I 
confidently employ——inseparably bound wp 
with the supposition that baptize meant in 
the Bryennios manuscript anything else 
than immerse. Immerse, therefore, bap- 
tize did mean, to this ancient writer, and 
yet more to Christ. 
‘In vain do they worship me, teaching 
_ for doctrines the commandments of men.” | 
“Ye are my friends if ye do whatever I 
command you.” 


sole 


Ws 


_ ‘Tarrytown, N. Y. 


= 

_ Tux Rev. A. C. Burrows, of Kent, O., gives his) 
view of Professor Wilkinson’s reductio ad absurd- 
um last week : 


1 have ““ considered” Professor Wilkinson’s article 
‘at my leisure.” I confess, however, that I am not 
sure that I have “applied to the problem my best 
efforts.” Iam inclined to husband my resources for 
some harder problem. 


wherever it occurs. 


tien for the word * baptize” of the old,: familiar 
meaning so often exhibited in art—“‘ to pour water 
upon the head of a person who stands in water.’’ 
This is a long phrase to substitute, and it will make an 
ugly sentence. But the meaning willbe clear. If the 
idea, the picture presented to the mind, the * thing 
meant” by the writer of the ‘‘ Teaching,” when he 
‘*used the word baptize,” was this, he wrote clearly, 
logically, without confession, when he said: ‘‘Con- 
cerning the pouring of water upon the head of a 
man standing in water, thus do it. Pour water upon 
his head inthe name, etc., while he stands in living 
water. Butif thou hast not living water, pour wa- 
ter upon his head while he stands in other water—in 
warm, if thou canst notin cold. But if thou hast 
ρος pour water thrice in the name, etc.,”—1.e., 


, ΟἿΣ ΚΙ iva 
| pour. 


The only way to test such a 

matter of interpretation is to substitute the supposed | 
interpretation for the word under examination, | 
Perhaps Professor Wilkinson | 
has enough leisure left to consider such a substitu- | 


_considered Constantinople letter in the 


_ paper, then it may mean to proclaim by town 


which has just reached this country, ap> | 


-σ΄ ; eres va σα ἢ 
“nater in this last case, although there isnot ἢ 
water enough to stand in. “But before the pouring | | 


of the water,” etc. Shc 
“50 simple, so self-consistent, so self-evidencing 
is truth, when you once but get at the truth vs 


τ eae Pt 
Suppose we try our hand with rofessor Wil- 
kinson, on a modern variation of the BA Ou on 
baptism in the Bryennios manuscript. Suppose 
it be a case of a law requiring all intentions of 
marriage to be published. Let it read as fol- 


lows : 

Concerning the publishing, thus publish. Having Ι 
first got the license, publish in the village paper. If i 
you cannot do this, publish in the county paper; if ᾿ 
you cannot in the Republican paper, then i the 
Democratic. In case there is no paper, then affixa | _ 
notice on the church door. Before publishing, be | { 
sure you have the parents’ consent. 

Professor Wilkinson will say—we merely apply i 
his argument—if publish has the technical sense | 
of making public and not of printing in a news- — 


erier. ‘Introduce this idea, and you have a re- 
markable result. That result is the following” : | 
In case newspapers abound, you may employ the — 
town crier. In case newspapers fail, you must affix 
notice to the church door. 
‘Consider this now at your leisure.” (We 
quote Professor Wilkinson. ) “You will find it | 
impossible, ultimately and hopelessly impossible, 
to escape the foregoing reduction to absurdity. 


The ‘“‘reduction” is an absurdity, simply because” 
the method applied is illogical. fs 


ooo 


} 
14] 


᾿ 


Ἶ bY 
ἣ 
4 


»" seg Hillside,” about whom there is the sus- 
picion of a theological professor, writes to The 
Examinerfrom Boston or vicinity, about the 
Bryennios document : 

‘Voltaire once made himselt the sport of European 
scholars by excessive haste in indorsing a Hindu 
forgery aS a complete refutation of the Bible. It ᾿ 
would be humiliating to American Pedobaptist |’ 
scholars, if they should be found in a similar dilem- 
ma, after their hasty exultation over the Baptists.” 
There iS τὸ danger. But why should Baptists 
get on the wrong side of this matter? Itis a 
great deal better policy to accept heartily the 
facts of criticism and not seem so terribly 
anxious lest something shall show them wrong. ~ 
We see no reason why Baptists saould quarrel — 
with the ‘‘Teaching,” Indeed it is a pretty fair | 
Baptist document, Certainly it gives no help 
to ‘‘ Pedobaptists.” " ln 


- 


Pd 


NOT A FORGERY. | 
THose writers and journals which had |! 


critical discernment enough not to be 
thrown off their balance by that very ill- 


Boston Advertiser, throwing suspicion on 
the integrity of Bishop Bryennios and the 
authenticity of the ‘‘ Teaching of the Apos- 
tles,” discovered by him, can take comfort _ 
to themselves in a discovery, the account of 


[which proves the “impossibility of af 
The absolute absence of avy 


proof of forgery, and the absolute-unanim- | | which contained a sermon of St. Boniface en- 


forgery. 


ity of all good scholars in accepting the new 
discovery ought to have made intelligent 
lee careful about accepting the sugges- 


tions of the Advertiser correspondent. But 


there are a great many people who do not 


know enough to tell a scholar from an ig- 


noramus. To them this anonymous Con- 


' stautinople writer, who was allowed to ac- 
company President Washburn and Pro- 
fessor Long, when they went a second time 


pres 


to take a photograph of the right-page, is 


as good authority as Harnack or Funk, or 


| deceive such men. 


Zahn, or Hilgenfeld or Wordsworth. They 
do not 866 how impossible it would be to 


replied to the injurious words that we had 
letters from both President Washburn and 
Professor Long, written after they had 


~made this second attempt, and that they in- 
| timated no suspicion of the genuineness of © 
the manuscript, but only blamed the pig- | 


headedness of the custodian who could not 


read a word of it, our correction could not 


_ overtake the original slander. 


A score of 
papers, whose editors had sectarian reasons 
for wishing to discredit the ‘‘ Teaching,” 


| spread abroad the suspicion and declared 


that American scholars and journals had 
been too hasty in accepting the document, 
and then reminded us solemnly of the 
Shapira forgeries. 
conception of the utter impossibility that 
the forgery of such a document could escape 


- detection. 


It is for the utter annihilation of these 
cavilers, who cannot understand the inter- 
nal evidence involved, and who do not 
know enough to trust tbe verdict of schol- 
ars, because, as we hav: said, they cannot 
tell a scholar when they see him, and have 
not the wisdom to accept the judgment of 
those who do have this faculty of recogniz- 
ing scholarship, that we give this piece of 
conclusive evidence just brought to our 
knowledge in the second part ot Harnack’s 
edition of the ‘‘ Teaching.” 

Harnack’s senior associate in the editor- 
ship of the series of volumes entitled, 


And when we instantly | 


These writers have no. 


i ne 


‘‘Texts and Investigations in the Historv of | 


Old Christian Literature.” of which his edi- 


tion of the ‘‘ Teaching” is a part, is the dis- , 


tinguished scholar, Oscar von Gebhardt. 
In reading Martin Kropft’s 
Mellicensis,” published in 1747, he discov- 
ered a reference to a treatise in Latin, en- 
titled ‘‘ Teaching of the Apostles,” which 


| had been entirely overlooked by scholars. 


eee a τσσαοιὶΝ ἜΝ 568 


ςς Bibliotheca | 


} 
{ 


It was an account of a “manuscript of the 
twelfth century, belonging to that library 


, titled “De Abrénuntiatione in Baptismate.” 


The account continues: 
page is found ‘Teaching of the Apostles,’ 
but imperfect. It begins: There are two 
ways in the world, of life and of death, of 
light and of darkness, etc.” Von Gebhardt 


saw that this was probably a Latin trans- | 
lation of the ‘‘ Teaching,” and he set to | 
He wrote to the librarian | 


work to find it. 
of the library for the manuscript, and re- 


ceived the reply that it was no longer there | 
and could not he traced. Then he looked | 


up the sermons of St. Boniface and found 
that thissermon ‘‘ De Abrenuntiatione,” is 
No. 15ia his collected writings, was first 
published by Martene in 1783, and the copy 
printed is by him credited to the courtesy 
of one Bernhard Pez. Now Pez was the 
custodian of this very library, and it was 
probably from this very manuscript that 
the printed copy wastaken. This sent 


‘On the last 


LL gemmnnd neem ~ os ene ae ee 


Von Gebhardt to the writings of Pez; and 
in the rubbish of his forgotten ‘‘ Thesaurus 


Anecdotorum” it was found that Pez had 
published this sermon of Boniface’s aad ap- 


pended to it all that was found of the’ 


‘‘ Teaching of the Apostles.” 


And here we 


give it below, translated from the Latin, as_ 


it was written in a twelfth century manu- 
script and printed a hundred and fifty years 
ago. 

ἐς There are two ways in the world, of life and 
of death, of light and of darkness. 

‘¢‘Over these are set two angels, one of right- 
eousness, the other of unrighteousness, 

‘* And the difference is great between the two 


ways. The way of life, then, is this: First, thou 


shalt love the eternal God who made thee. Sec- 


ond, thy neighbor as thyself. And all which 


thou wouldst not have done to thee do not thou 
to another. 

‘‘And the interpretation of these things is 
this: Thou shalt not commit adultery, thou 
shalt not commit murder, thou shalt not speak 
false witness, thou shalt not corrupt boys, 
thou shalt not commit fornication . . . thon 
shalt not cumpound poisons, thou shalt not 
kill a child by abortion, nor destroy one already 
born. Thou shalé not covet anything of thy 
neighbor’s. Thou shalt not bear false witness, 
thou shalt not speak evil. Thou shalt not be 
mindful of evil deeds. 


be empty nor false. 


nor . 
That this is part of a translation of the 


Thou shalt not be double | 
in giving counsel, nor double-tongued; for the | 
tongue is a snare of death. Thy word shall not | 
Thou shalt not be covet- | 
ous, nor ἐιλήρας ἐλ nor rapacious, nor ἃ Botreters 


τὸς ---- ς-οΟ-------.- .-- ο«-.---.-.-.--.. .-'-.-----ς----ςς.--. 


β 


ame title, and, so far as it goes, isa 


comparisons. 
the Seventh Book of the Apostolic Consti- 
tutions, nor from the many-named ‘‘ Con- 
| stitutions of Clement” (‘‘ Epitome,” ‘‘ Cop- 
| tic Constitutions,” ‘‘ Syrian Constitutions,” 
“ Due Vie,” ‘Judgment of Peter”), nor 


similar source, but can only be a transla- | 
tion of this very Greek ‘‘ Teaching of the | 
Apostles” which Bryennios has just pub- | 

lished. The integrity of Bryennios, unsus- 
Τ pected by any decent scholar, is thus surpris- 
| ingly confirmed by this forgotten fragment 
Ἰ of a Latin translation printed a hundred 
and fifty years ago from a manuscript seven 
hundred years old. We trust that those 
| who have given currency to the suspicion 
| will make haste to undo the injury. 


4 Ir has been both amusing and provoking to 
_ observe how that Constantinople letter in the 
Boston Advertiser, throwing suspicion on the 
‘manuscript of the “Teaching of the Apostles” 
discovered by Bryennios, has been seized upon 
by a number of people who are delighted to 
spread abroad its insinuations, and who are not 
restrained by their complete ignorance of the 
subject. It is in just those two denominations 
whose extreme tenets have seemed to some to be 
discredited by the ‘‘Teaching ” that this un- 
seemly haste to believe it a forgery without 
one scintilla of evidence, and against all 
evidence, has occurred. We mentioned last 
week that letters received by us from Presi- 
dent Washburn and Professor Long, with 
whom the Advertiser correspondent went to 
examine the manuscript, suggested no suspicion 
of anything more than the pigheadeduess of the 
ignorant official in charge, who could not 
read the manuscript and was willful and stupid 
enough to insist that the last page of the manu- 
script, of which a photograph had been taken, 
was part of the ‘‘ Teaching.” Prof. E. C. Smyth 
has now written a letter to The Advertiser, in 
which he has shown clearly enough the impos- 
sibility of the thing’s being aforgery. There is 
a certain indecency about the suggestion, 
whether made in Constantinople, or repeated 
and indorsed by The Churchman, The Examiner, 
The Watchman and other papers, which de- 
serves attention. What would these papers say 
if some distinguished scholar in their own de- 
nominations, if they had one as thoroughly 
learned in patristic literature as the Bishop of 
Nicomedia, or if Profegsor Richey or OQsgaod or 
Long or Lincoln were publicly posted as having 
very likely forged’ the authorities they 
ore quoting? There would be some in- 
dignation. But it is ποὺ 8 bit 2; less 
‘an offense in the case of Bryennios. He = “is no 
unknown man, but a graduate of a German 
| university, and known for many years for his 


ing,” is perfectly’ evide evident. It has 


very - air translation, as will be seen by | 
It could not have come from ᾿ 


from Barnabas or Hermas, or any other ἢ 


— 
ath” π΄ τὐ΄.-τ--.--.--.- 


4 porta work in patristic science. 
‘ching ” isa forgery, then his Edition 
~€ Clement is based on a 


¥5 
Pi the same manuscript volume, 

hand. But it is simply ridicu- 

éwriters, who never read the Greek of 
~istles of Clement or of one of the Visions 


| of ‘Hermas, to venture to fling about these un- 


- founded imputations, when not a competent | 


| scholar of Germany, England, France, or Amer- | 
ica, has any question on the subject, though 
a dozen have studied the matter thoroughly. 
| We would like to suggest to our hasty friends 
that when there isa forgery made it is not the 


scholars who swallow it, and the ignoramuses_ 
who discover it. 


ae 


sf 
Spill 


Diggs e: CRED ge 3 ie 


Tue New Mork Times ee an’ amusing 
editor, who has shown himself greatly 
‘troubled because the ‘‘Teaching of the 
Apostles,” discovered by Bryennios, does" 
\tot recognize the hierarchical order in the 
‘Church which was fully developed ‘into 
‘separate orders of bishops, priests, and dea- 
‘cons during the second and third centuries. 
\He has evidently been coached by some 
stiff high churchman who cannot bear the 
idea that the episcopal order, as it now ex- 
ists, did not come fresh minted from the 
hand of our Saviour himself; and, some 
time ago, he made this the basis of a sus- 


been long agreed by the best ecclesiastical 
scholars of all Christian bodies, Episcopal. 
and non-Episcopal, that the bishops were 
originally identical with elders or pas- 


— 


created by the prominence assumed by a 
presiding elder, or bishop. . 


the party of gentlemen who attempted to 


script of the ‘* Teaching,” which is in a 
graph of the last page of the volume con- 


themselves expert paleeographers, supposed 
they had a photograph of a page of the 


photograph was sent to us. 
came to examine the developed photograph, 
however, they found, what a careful read- 
ing of Bryennios would have tuld them, 
that the ‘“‘ Teaching ” was not at the end of 


picion of the genuineness of the “Teuch- 
ing,” ignorant of the fact that it has ΠΟΥ 


letter to the Boston Advertiser, by a corre: 
spondent in Constantinople, who went with 


get a photograph of a page of the manu-— 


convent in that city. They took a photo-. 


| ‘‘Teaching” itself; and a copy of that- 
When they 


the volume, but occupied a few pages in 
τα WEL: A RONG ὭΣ τ 


tors, and that gradually a distinct order was | 


The Zimes writer has at last found a little. 
comfort, which he is quick to seize, in ea 


| 
| 


taining the ‘‘ Teaching,” and not being — 


poe 


eer 


‘the middle of Ey ene They." δ 

back to the monastery for the,” 
photographing the right τ΄ 

ignorant monk in charge αι > ' 

already had the right thin. —, 

not allow them totake the pictus-+. , ; 

ber of the party on the last occasion writes, 
the letter to the Advertiser, in which he 
suggests that there may have been special 
| reasons why the monk deceived them the. 
first time, and afterward refused to let them. 
take a picture, though he did allow them to 
see and personally examine the volume at. 
leisure. The correspondent says that, it 
there were any forgery, which he is care-| 
| ful not to say he believes, there is no man) 
‘more competent to execute it cleverly, from | 
his great knowledge of the early Church | 
‘writings, than this Bryennios. The Times 
editor is delighted with this suggestion, and | 
accepts it as a proved fact, and heads his 
article ‘‘ Easy Credulity.” 

Our readers will know better than to 
accept a word of this suspicion. The two 
gentlemen who attempted to secure the | 
| photograph were President Washburn and 
Professor Long. We have received letters | 
from both of these gentlemen (and no one 
in the East has a more thorough acquaint- 
ance with Oriental character), and neither 
of them entertains the least suspicion of the 


good faith of Bishop Bryennios. It is a mere | 


‘ease of that stubborn pigheadedness which 
-is characteristic of ignorant officials no- 
_ where more than in the Orient. 
The Times writer has never read the 
‘* Teaching.” He says there is in it an ‘‘ab- 
sence of any mention of Bishops (with a 
capital B). The fact is they are mentioned 
freely.. It is presbyters that are not men- 
tioned, because they are the same as bishops. 
It is further made a suspicious circum- 
stance that the manuscript has not been 
sent to Germany to be examined by Euro- 
| pean scholars. It is, however, accessible 
| to them when they come to see it, and all 
| the collations Harnack has asked for have 


“been freely given by correspondence; and | 


| further, not one of the distinguished patris- 
tic scholars of Germany who have written | 

on the subject has intimated a suspicion of 
its genuineness; neither Harnack, nor 
Hilgenfeld, nor Zahn, nor Funk. The in- 
ternal evidence is abundant and striking, , 
and is related to so many little points that 
it would puzzle a congress of the most as-| 
tute scholars to forge so gennine-looking ἃ. 
document. Besides, we would like to have | 
our lover of bishops tell us what possible | 


motive a Greek bishop could have for forg-) 4 ἦ 
E Ξ | nobody, he permits nobody to see it. The fact |, 


| says, ‘‘ denied the authority of Bishops.” | 


| orders of the priesthood., This is ‘ precisely 
| what a clever forger of the ‘Teaching’ would 


| either Catholics or Protestants to prove his 


PPE I “= eet ee 


BR 4 a ee ce 
‘ing a document which, as the Times editor | 


4 


i" 


Ἵ 


The Tumes adds: — 

ΤῸ these suspicious circumstances should be ) 
added the fact that the pretended manuscript i 
was discovered in a library in Constantinople | 
which has been ransacked scores of times, and) 
which contains only about 600 Manuscripts. It 
is in the highest degree improbable that the kecn | 
hunters who had examined again and again me | 
small number of manuscripts should never have 
discovered the ‘ Teaching’ 
among them.” 


The airy tone of this paragraph makes Τὶ | 
pBry the play of a day or two to go over. 
‘this small number of manuscripts.” It is, | 


if it was really — 


| on the other hand, a large number, and it 


is not probable that they have ever been 
thoroughly examined, so as to know what. 
little treatise may be concealed in a large ; 
volume in a difficult hand, filled chiefly | 


| with well-known or. worthless monkish | 


works which do not need collation. ‘The 


_ argument denies the possibility of any new | 
Ϊ 


discoveries of lost manuscripts. 
HOCH ἢ 
ΨΥ iy Tal << ee 

Tue Times, of this city, is allowing some- | 
body to write nonsense in its editorial colnmns, 
about the ““ Teaching of the Twelve Apostles.” | 
A recent article tries to prove the document a 
forgery, by showing that it is non-commital on 4 
the two most important questions which divide | 
Catholics and Protestants, the Eucharist and the ἡ 
Priesthood. The “Teaching” does not indicate | 
whether it regards the Eucharist asa sacrifice or a 
symbol; nor is it clear on the question of the | 


PERV IT BPSGe Sota corse τος 


do.” He would ‘“‘avoid answering old ques- 
tions in such a way as to make it necessary for 


work a forgery.” This argument simply is, 
reduced to iis naked absurdity, that, in order to 
prove the Gospel of John, for example, a forgery, — 
you have only to assume that the forger would 
have written just as John has written! He 
would be very clumsy, indeed, at forgery who 
would write the “‘ Teaching” in such a way as to 
decide the questions which separate Catholics 
and Protestants. The document, in other 
words, bears marks of the first century, there- 
fore it is to be looked upon with suspicion. ὦ 
Another suspicious circumstance is that Bryen- 
nios will not ‘permit any one to see the manu- 
script.” He hasn’t ‘‘shown the original manu- 
script, which he claims to have found, to any 
one,” and when .to this is added the ‘‘ curious 
fact” that no one ever found the manuscript be- 
fore, the case seems to be about complete 
against the Metropolitan of Nicomedia. The 
Times writer implies that Bryennios has the 
manuscript in his possession. He shows it to 


--......ὕ...ὲ.. 


᾿ 


ee 


is that the manuscript is notin his hands, it is tection of the righteous?” Most certainly 
in the library where he found it; that he is not 1] their penne se fi; y 1 unaeestood 
ay be sou b é 


its custodian nor the custodian of the library ; | Tf suet Ἶ ; ᾿ 
that the library is not under his ecclesiastical es ΣΤῈΣ their meaning, in answer it 
may be said, that, while the Scriptures re- 


control; and, furthermore, that, owing to κῃ diffi- 
ferred to, considered in themselves, will 


f culty between the Patriarch and himself, he 18. | 
not tree even to enter Constantinople; he is | bear the interpretation given them, even as 
practically exiled to Nicomedia. One of the daily the words of our Lord, ‘“‘My Father is 
; papers of this city conclusively proved to its greater than I,” considered in themselves, 
ΜΝ τ ctestan cat Mat Liviayatanett “Roti fidte yee Sea ae 
7 ant alvingstone 8 Socinianism, yet, in comparison with other 


letters, forwarded through Stanley, were for- 


ae 
: ; : Scriptures, that interpretation is, to say the 
geries. The Times is engaged in a task quite as ᾿ Υ ἐπρττα σα ΡΝ 


least, doubtful. Those passages, in order 


. promising. 

3 hake ον Ὁ : to our appreciation of their full meaning, 

ὶ iv, 183—18, our document may, after all, only be | must be viewed in connection with others 
emphasizing the resurrection of the righteous.’ such as the following: (1.) That both διὰ 


It is freely admitted that Premillenarian- Lord and the Apostle Paul speak of a | 
ism is not ‘‘taught” in the chapter referred special resurrection of the righteous, which 
to. But is it too much to claim that, the ed- | is to be striven after, and which they 
itors themselves being witnesses, it is sug- | designate as from the dead (ἐκ vexpor) | 
gested ὃ If not, why was the note written? (Luke xx, 35; Phil. iii, 11), the preposition 
In point of fact nothing is directly taught indicating the raising of only a portion of 
in the document concerning a Millennium | the dead. (2.) That the Apostle Paul, who 
(by that name) at any period, either before believed in a resurrection of ail the dead, 
or after the Second Advent. But it must! ‘‘both of the just and unjust” (Acts xxiv, 
be evident to every careful reader that the 15) speaks of different orders in the 
teachingis utterly inconsistent with the now resurrection—‘‘ Christ the first fruits, after- 


prevalent doctrine concerning the Millen- | Wards they that are Christ’s at his com- 

‘ nium—namely, that it is to precede the ing” (1 Cor, xv, 22, 23); (it is true that he 
‘ coming of the Lord. mentions only the first and the second 
The last chapter begins with the exhorta- “order,” leaving the third tobe inferred; 


tation ει Watch for your life’s sake; let your | but the first and second are manifestly 
lamps not go out, and your loins not be re-‘ separated by millennia, and the implication 
laxed, but be ready; for ye know not the’ | 18 that the resurrection of the third order 
hour in which our Lord cometh.” There “| occurs at ‘‘ the end,” vers. 24.) (3.) That the 
is no interjection here of an earthly period || Apostle John declares (Rev. xx, 4-6) that 
of righteousness and blessedness before the | there are to be two resurrections, sepa- 
Advent. On the contrary, ‘the last days” | tated by an interval of a thousand years 
are described, immediately afterward, as (hence the term Millennium), the subjects 
those of abounding iniquity and distress; | of the first being possessed of. the charac- 
after which are set forth the signs of the | teristics of those mentioned in Matt. xxiv, 
Advent, the resurrection of the righteous || 31, I Thess. iv, 18-18, I Cor. xv, 23, and 
dead, andthe Advent itself. ‘| those also mentioned in Luke xx, 35 and 

Now it is literally true that, in all this, Phil. iii, 11, who are specified as being 
‘“Premillenarianism is not directly taught”; | raised from the dead. In view of these 
put it is just as true, that Post-millenarian- | facts, is it not questionable whether Matt. 
ism is most certainly, though, of course, | xxiv, 31, and I Thess. iv, 18-18, may ‘‘ only 
impliedly denied. But the editors also de- be emphasizing the resurrection of the 
clare that Premillenarianism is ‘‘ perhaps righteous”? Is it not, to say the least, 
not even indirectly taught.” Sofarit may possible, that, in ‘‘following the ‘lead of 
be remarked, as the mere text of the chap- the New Testament,” the authors of the 
ter under consideration is concerned, per- , ‘‘ Teaching” intended to set forth a resur- 
haps not; but, let it be observed, the only | rection of the righteous, separated by the 
alternative is the implication that there is period of the Kingdom (that is, in the lan- 


to be no Millennium. | guage of the present day, the Millennium) 
It was said above that the Millennium, by from the final resurrection? 

that name, is not mentioned in the docu- Newarg, N. J. 

ment; but itis by no means certain that it -----εο----- 


is not mentioned under another title. In 
the Eucharistic chapters (ix and x) the 
following petitions occur: ‘Just as this 
q broken bread was scattered over the hilis; 
and having been gathered together became 
one, so let thy Church be gathered together 
from the ends of the earth into thy Kine- 
pom”; and again, ‘‘ Remember, Lord, thy 
Church, to deliver it from every evil and to 
make it perfect in thy love, and to gather 
it from the four winds, τέ, the sanctified, 
into thy Kinepom, which thou hast pre- 
pared for it; for thine is the power and the 
glory forever. Let grace come and let this 
world (κόσμος) pass away. - - + Maranatha 
(Our Lord cometh]. Amen.” Now it is | 
demonstrable, in my judgment, from the | 
Scriptures and from Ante-Nicene writings, 
that the term Krvapom was never applied to 
the Church of the present age previous tc 
the establishment of the Church by the Em- 
peror Constantine, but that it was always 
used to designate what is now generally 
styled the Millennium. 

It is not designed in the present paper, 
to attempt the demonstration of the posi- 
tion taken. To do so, in view of the pre- 
vailing judgment of the Church, would re- 
quire a treatise rather than a newspaper 
article. Attention, however, will be called 
to the following facts. In the first place, 
the Kingdom mentioned in chapters ix and 
x of the ‘‘ Teaching,” is not the Church in 
the condition in which it existed inthe 
second century; it is, manifestly, the one ] 
into which she is to be gathered at the 
coming of the Lord. Apparently it is the 
one contemplated in the eschatological dis- 


course of Jesus, recorded Matt. xxiv, xxv; 
Mark xiii; Luke xxi. (See especially Luke 
xxi, 81, and Matt. xxv, 1, where the term 
“Kingdom” is introduced.) In the second 
place, the authors of the ‘‘Teaching,” in 
the petitions of chapters ix and x, and in 
the declarations of chapter xvi, apparently | 
had in view the discourse of our Lord, just 
referred to. Not only is the exhortation 
‘Watch, therefore; for ye know not what 
hour your Lord doth come” (Malt. XXiv, 
42; xxv, 13) substantially reproduced; but 
the order of events, culminating in the ad- 
vent and the establishment of the Kingdom, 
is apparently the game as that set forth 
therein. 

In conclusion, attention will be briefly 
called to the final sentence of the note 
under consideration. Did the editors in- 
tend to assert therein that, in Matt. xxiv, 
81 and I Thess. iv, 18—18 our Lord and the 
apostle were ‘‘only emphasizing the resur- 


“ THE 


ἘΝ EDITIONS OF 
ING OF THE | 
JS Eps Ania Wp e5* 1 


Adis S. Hitchcock and Brown were first in 
the field with an American edition of ‘‘The Teach- | 
ing of the Apostles”; and at that time they ex-— 
pressed their purpose of issuing a larger and | 
better edition early in. the Autumn of 1884. 
Meanwhile, many an edition, translation, dis- 
cussion, and criticism went forth, exhibiting all 
degrees of fitness and wisdom on the part of 
their authors, with the general result that 
Bryennios, in his editio princeps, had reaped the 
field pretty thoroughly as to the facts, and 


| jeft the gleanings mostly in the line of reasoning 


Ὶ 


᾿ divided between Palestine er Syria, and Egypt; 


_of the ‘‘ Teaching” by Irenzxus, by Clement of 


“- 


Eusebius (and later as far ἃ8. Nicephorus) and | 


and conclusions. Harnack prepared the fullest | 
edition in Germany, and Hilgenfeld the most 
bold and brilliant one. The English mostly 
waited, producing a few essays and translations 
that were able enough in talking about the 
“Teaching,” but mediocre in their direct hand- | 
ling of it. The Frenchmen generally followed the 
lead of some one or another author in another 
country, with but little independent work. The 
Scandinavians worked with some independence. 
The Americans generally waited for the promised 
larger editions, and contented themselves with | 
some special treatises of uncommon ability on | 
particular points connected with the document, 
while the periodicals—especially the religious 
weeklies—teemed with essays of the sort that 
usually greet a nine days’ wonder. Some de- 
nominational partisans ventured the gratuitous 
suggestion that the whole was a forgery by Bry- 
ennios, but without bringing to their uncon-_ 
scious satire a tithe of the convincing power of 
Whately’s ‘‘ Historic Doubts” respecting the ex- | 
istence of Napoleon Bonaparte. | 
Concerning the antiquity of the document, 
and the substantial integrity of the manuscript 
in which it is preserved, there is a pretty close | 
agreement among al! the scholars of every coun- | 
try ; the majority, in England, Germany, Amer- 
ica, and elsewhere, assigning it to a time about, 
the close of the first century, and the minority, 
who suppose it subsequent to the Epistle of Bar- 
nabas, and the Shepherd of Hermas, putting it 
at various dates—but none later that A. D. 165. 
As to the country of its origin, scholars are 


one of the reasons for choosing the latter coun- 
try being that the separation between the office 
of bishop and presbyter, and the supremacy of 
the former, was of later growth in Egypt than 
in Palestine or Syria. Among the reasons for 
the early date are the citations and quotations 


a“ 


Alexandria, by Tertullian, and others, down to. 


the internal evidence of the document itself. 
As Wordsworth and Canon Spence showed, it 
marks a transition period, when the office of 
apostle, even in the lower sense, was disappear- 


ing, when the ‘‘ teacher,” in the original higher 
cr nn me  -.- ----  [ { 


Pee ee —- e poled aati 
| sense, was beginning to be a thing of the past, 


POSTLE: ba i 


and when the New Testament ‘ prophet” was: 
already a rarity, esteemed above the stated bish- 
ops and deacons; which last two still remained 
the only stated and permanent offices in the / 
Church, the presbyter being still apparently 
identical with the bishop, though the two were . 
soon to be differentiated, and their former 
identity almost forgotten by Ignatius and Tertul- 
lian. The ‘‘ omissions” of the ‘‘Teaching” speak — 
in such a way that they cannot be mistaken, as 
may be seen by reading the prolegomena to Har- 
nack’s edition, or the Excursus I, II, and IX, of 
the edition of Canon Spence. Its unconscious 
ear-marks of antiquity, too, are manifold—in its © 
language, its coincidences and in the impress of 
its time throughout. Pi 

On the other hand, the τος of a for-* 
gery by Bryennios involves his stultifying him-— 
self in his ecclesiastical position and theological. 


tenets, rests on no basis that would command 


respect in a lawsuit for fifty dollars, and is 
coupled, wherever it appears, with ignorance or. 
faulty representation of the facts of his connec- 
tion with the document, and a desire to bolster 
up some peculiar views or prepossessions. Bry-. 
ennios had as strong reasons, and, in some re-. 
spects, the same reasons, for rejecting the docu- | 
ment as those who suggest that he forged it. 

The new and enlarged édition of Hitchcock 
and Brown is in every way a great improvement | 
upon their former one, as a work of deliberation 
and thoroughness is better than a work of haste. | 
It bears everywhere the marks of conscientious- 
ness. The translation, though based upon the — 
previous one, has been purged of its former inac- 
curacies, and, however taste may vary as to the 
style of the translation and its expressions, it is 
faithful and correct. Abundant use has been 
made of the work of others, as was to be ex- 
pected, and the bees have made very good honey. | 
But it is in the introduction and notes that the | 
chief labor appears. As to date, the editors 
assign it to about the close of the first century, — 
and yet do not feel that there is any need for 
being strenuous about a date so very early. 
They believe, with the majority of critics, that — 
the document is prior to the Epistle of Barna-— 
bas and the Shepherd of Hermas, with full re- 
spect, however, for scholars who put those 
treatises first in time. (Of course, the three 
writings are not independent ; and those who 
would make the ‘‘ Teaching” a late treatise have 
the same quarrel with Barnabas and Hermas, as 
well as with the ‘*‘ Two Ways’). They incline to 
the opinion that the country of the ‘‘ Teaching” — 
was Egypt, giving an array of reasons which | 
they think cannot be shown for any other cdun- 
try. 


Their introduction is very full and sheet 


ough, leaving perhaps only one portion of the > 
ground that might be better covered in ἃ 
work of its scale—viz., the connection with the | 


apostolic cane>s and constitutions ; but no com- 


[ς 


τον 


{ 


᾿ΠΟΝΙΗυΥ | 


ot 


_‘NOVOLZONV τ 


. 


eer 
aw Lb 


y= 


| 


plaint can reasonably be made of neglect, con- 
sidering the size of the treatise. The limit of 
expansion had to be fixed somewhere. 
troduction contains twelve sections, in which 
are discussed the codex in which the ‘*Teach- 
ing” was discovered; the integrity of the 


text; the history of the treatise in the early 
Church ; modern discussions before Bryennios ; 
| the sources, arrangement of matter, purpose 


and scope, and doctrine of the ‘‘Teaching” ; the 
constitution of the churches according to its tes- 


| timony ; its date and place of composition ; and, 
finally, the peculiarities of the codex, and the 


printed texts. Less full than the prolegomena of 
Harnack, it yet produces for the first time in 
English a number of matters and documents that 
are to be welcomed. The parallels with Barna- 
‘bas, Hermas, the apostolic canons and constitu- 
tions are set forth in a way easily taken in by 
the eye. Krawutzcky’s “ΤΟ Ways,” as pro- 
duced by critical conjecture before the ‘‘ Teach- 
ing” was discovered, is given entire, in English, 
with the differenses from the ‘‘Teaching” marked 
by appropriate type. The ‘‘ apostle” and the 
ἐς prophet” of the *‘ Teaching” are passed over a 
little too summarily. In the tables, which show 
the peculiarities of the printed texts, alittle too 
much importance is given to the work of Curry; 
for that was merely a reprint of Orris’s (in the 
“Journal of Christian Philosophy”) ,italics, punc- 
tuation, and all, with only the insertion of a few 
bracketed explanatory words (and those not 
always correct), cne change of a word, and a few 


changes in the spelling. 


. The notes are the result of much labor, valu- 
able in many directions, and always careful to 
record the character of: the vocabulary, with 
reference to classic, New Testament, or Septua- 
gint Greek diction. Rarely a note goes against 
the translation ; as, 6. g., that respecting Chapter 
i, line 15. The translation reads: ‘‘And ye 
shall have no enemy”; but, according to the 
sentiment of the note, it should read: ‘‘And 
ye will have no enemy.” The notes on Chap- 
ter vii are uncompromising in the matter of 
baptism, and squarely take the ground that 
to baptize, in the New Testament, means to 
‘fapply water as a symbolic purifying act,” and 
quotes with approbation the words of Lightfoot, 
to the effect that the word ‘‘ baptisms,” properly 


and strictly, is not to be taken of dipping or | 


plunging, but, in respect of some things, of 
washing only, and in respect of others, of 
sprinkling only.” The notes on baptism occupy 


some four pages, and remind us of some hot | 


controversies of forty years ago. The notes are 
incomparably fuller and better than in the first 
edition. ‘They express, of course, the author’s 
views. It should be said that the introduction 
is the work of Dr. Brown, and the notes that of 
Dr. Hitchcock, while the translation rests on the 
joint responsibility of the two. 
with a list of words not found in the New Testa- 
ment, or not used therein in the same sense. 

The Appendix, mainly furnished by the cour- 
| tesy of Dr. Schaff (who is shortly to bring out an” 
edition of be τ Σ ἐὰν τος ΜΝ ἈΙΘΕΡΊν, ule is OB 


The in- | 


The notes close | 


important essays on the subject. 
ditions are made by Professor Brown. This por- 
tion is, perhaps, unique, as it is valuable; and it 
| fills thirteen pages. The whole book is a pretty 
comprehensive and conscientious edition, in- 
tended to cover the ground asa general text and 
commentary edition from the scholarly and 
| Christian points of view. 
The work of Canon Spence, which has but just 
j reached this country, is likewise a scholarly 
| affair ; but it does not, apparently, aim at being 
a thorough treatise on every point. Its posi- 
tion in the Didache literature is quite peculiar, 
_giving-e-new- look at the subject, with such a 
᾿ 68] of freshness that it is readable and profit- . 
able, ἢ nly. to the Englishmen, who, with 
yak national inertia, have nelgected the 
‘* Teaching,” but even to: those who have been 
careful to exbaust every edition and treatise 
procurable. The book begins with the English 
translation, and ends with the Greek text. The 


| peculiarity of the notes, among editions in Eng- 


| lish, is the abundance of patristic quotations 
and material. The translation and notes need 


_ Inore and fuller specimen quotations to show | 


their character than oar space will allow; yet 
Some things may be cited. For the passive 
δίδοσθαι (Chapter i) an active rendering 15. em- 
ployed. 1n the same chapter we have the ren- 
“ dering: ‘‘ Let thine alms drop like sweat into 
thine hands so long as (or, until) thou knowest 


to whom to give. In Chapter iv, κυριότης is ren- 


dered “‘the glory of the Lord,” and annotated 


as if that were a literal translation. In the 


*“noble Giver of the reward.” 


portion of Chapter vii: ‘While considerable 
license was permissible in the description of 
water used—running or other water, while im- 


| mersion or aspersion were alike sanctioned— 


| the use of the Baptismal Formula given by the > 
| Son—in the name of the ever-blessed Trinity—_ 
|is declared here to be absolutely necessary for 

the validity of the rite.” On the subject of bap- 
_tism the author also quotes from Hitchcock and 
|Brown’s earlier edition. 


| garded as a direct reference to ‘ Pharisees” ; 
and this, with many other indications, rather 
strong in the aggregate, is taken as pointing to 
a Jewish-Christian origin of the Teaching.” In 
Chapter x, the rendering “ἡ gather her, now made 
holy, from the four winds, into thy kingdom,” 


_ early American-translation ; and doubtless with 
more correctness than those who consider “ the 

| sanctified” as a distinctive epithet. In ‘‘Christ- | 
trafficker” (Chaptey xii), a another American lead 
is followed, with a change of word. In Chapter 
xiv, we have the sing cepylar rendering, ‘* the Lord’s 
Lord’s day,” ae soe ‘the remark that the seeming 
autology ig” “arent in the origi 


a “yms in-), 
cludes editions and τῶν ἀπο with the more} 
Bracketed ad- 


same chapter, καλὸς ἀνταποδότης is translated| 


Nor should we here pass over his note on a 


It should also be said ἂ 
that, in Chapter viii, the term ‘“‘hypocrites” is re- 


uses the same expedient of changing the order 
of words, instead of expressing the (un-idiomat- _ 
ic in English) article, that was employed in an P 


nal {. 


{ 
ἡ 


ica which, in the ‘‘Teaching”” ta gap in our 

knowledge” is ‘‘supplied just as we should-ex- 
pect, that is to say, we have a description of the 
transition from the state of things described in 
‘the Acts and the Epistles of Paul” to ‘‘that pre- 
supposed in the Ignatian Epistles.” 

- But itis in the nine ‘‘ Excursus” (the canon 
uses the Latin plural) that the remarkable 
things are summed up. Among other things 
they give the early history of the patristic cita- | 
tions of the “Teaching,” and a brief account οὗ 
each Father who quoted or cited it, with the 
date of his literary activity. The author con- 
cludes that the ‘‘Teaching” dates from the time 
when the ‘‘ prophet” was the principal person 
of influence in the Christian community, and, 

- while the power of the [Episcopal] bishops is 
jast dawning. Also, the ‘‘Teaching”’ must have 
issued from a Jewish-Christian center”; and 
-hemakes a rather long argument to show that 
its place was probably Pella, among the Jewish 
refugees ; and that it is one of three writings 
(of widely different characters) of the Jewish 
school; the others being the Epistle of James, 
and the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs. 
Its testimony to the canon of the New Testa- 
ment is considered explicit as to Matthew and 
Luke, and implicit as to John and the Epistle 
to the Romans, as well as to others of the Pauline | 
Epistles. The use of the Old Testament is such 
as to show a Jewish origin, and the allusions to | 

- wine-press oil, and the like, show a village origin | 
rather than one in a city like Alexandria, An- | 
-tioch, or Corinth. Very fresh and enlivening, | 
- and generally valuable, is all that the author has | 


| 


| 
| 
| 


to say about the relation of the ‘‘Teaching” to | 


Barnabas and Hermas, and about the state of 
the Church as shown in the patristic citations 
(in the notes and as) summed up in Excursus VY. 
The citations represent the wide extent of the 
world, and most of the schools of training. 


marks on the “apostles,” the ‘‘ prophets,” 
the ‘teachers’ and the ‘‘ bishops and dea- 
cons.” Each of these heads fills a separate Ex- 
cursus, which cannot be read without interest ; 
and the interest is greatly enhanced by the fact 
that the utterances are those of an open-minded 
and scholarly dignitary of the Church of Eng- 
land. Excursus IX, on the ““ Bishops and Dea- 
cons,” is specially noteworthy, as the following 
quotation will show: ‘‘Nor need we inquire 
why these two orders, bishops and deacons, 
alone are mentioned, to the exclusion of the or- 
der of presbyters; for, in the language of the 

| _apostolic age, to which this writing of the 
be Teaching of the Apostles’ belongs, the bishop 
Hl and the presbyter were identical.” [Here Canon 
Spence cites numerous passages from the Epis- 
tles and Acts to show this fact.] ‘‘ As late as 
' the last decade of the first century, in the 
_ Epistle of Clement of Rome, the terms bishop 
i) 3 and presbyter were still convertible.” ‘‘ The 


+ 


᾿᾿ of the Episcopal power,” he goes on to pay, 


*. ~“s\place early in the second century. The 


: } tory note to this publication is by Pres. D. Ὁ, 
Yet freshest and most suggestive are the re- | Gilman, stating that the photographs were ob- 


. was gradual, = 


ransition. 


ἴωμεν a 


i In view of all this, we are. prepara to find 
Ὶ Canon Spence assigning the “Teaching” to the 


_ last quarter of the first century. But, he had © 
already taken that position and stated it to be 
that of the majority of. scholars, in a stirring 
sermon (‘‘ The Old Paths,”) on the ‘‘ Teaching 
_ of the Apostles,” preached in St. Paul’s Cathe- 
dral, in London, June 22d, 1884, which he 
has added at the end of the Excursusin this 
book. 
The value of Canon Spence’s edition is notin | 
its new matter, for of that there is not so much ; | 
but its manner of presentation, its amplifying | 
on certain peculiar points in the last few Ex- | 
cursus, its putting the old knowledge in a new 
light, not to mention the standpoint of its 
author, and the key-note he strikes, make it a 
very alluring book. The undertone is that of 


Christian love, looking back to any and every | 


light of the “‘ old paths,” and insisting that the 

choice of the ‘two ways” is as destitute now as 
ever of a third alternative. 

- Three pages of the Bryennios Manuscript 
have been reproduced by photography by the 
‘Publication Agency of Johns Hopkins Univer- 
_ sity, and edited with notes by J. Rendel Harris, 
| Associate Professor of New Testament Greek 
and Paleography. Only one hundred and 
twenty-five copies have been printed. The pages 
include the last verses of the Epistle of Barna- 
bas, the superscription and opening of the first | 
Epistle of Clement, the close of the second Epis- | 
tle of Clement, the first verses of the ‘ Teaching | 
ot the Apostles,” the last verses of the Epistle of 
Ignatius to the Romans, the catalogue of the 
Old Testament books (Hebrew roughly repre- 
sented in Greek letters, and the Greek equiva-. 
lents), and the beginning of the genealogy of 
Joseph, the husband of Mary. Above this last 
fragment is the scribe’s date, eleventh day of 
June in the indiction 9, and year 6564 (of the 
world), answering to A.D. 1056. The introduc- — 


tained by the Rev. Charles R. Hale, D.D., of 
Baltimore, some three months ago. The notes. 
of Professor Harris are chiefly confined to mat 

ters connected with these pages, and are ably 
done. Facing each photographic page is its 


transcription in ordinary Greek type, done with 
ability and accuracy. On page C (fol. 120, a), | 
line 3, his reading is probably wrong in insert- | 
ing τοῦ before θεοῦ, though there is some 
slight color for the insertion. Professor Harris 
takes occasion to correct a mistake or two of 
former editors. His remarks about the punctu- 
ation need to be taken with, not against Bryen- 
nios. 
Appended are two pages of notes on the cata- 
logue of Old Testament writings, by Mr. Cyrus 
Adler, a student in the Semitic Seminary of the 
‘University, able, and quite in place for readers 
_and students, and as a complement to this work, 
though superfluous to a biblical critic. 


: 


DA fede LISLE SE 
Ξ — — Pe se 


THE TEACHING OF THE APOS- 
| - 'TLES IN FRANCE.* © 


_ France has produced a few good essays 
upon the ‘‘Teaching of the Twelve Apos- 
᾿ 4168, notably one by L. Massebieu in 1884, 
in La Revue de ἢ Histoire des Religions, an- 
other, by the same, in Le Temoignage, Feb- 
ruary, 1885, and a series of eight papers by 
Paul Sabatier (now pastor of Veglise Saint 
, Nicolas, in Strassburg), in successive num- 
bers of L’ Hglise Libre, in 1884. Less im- 
portant, but worth a passing mention, are 
articles by !’Abbe L. Duchesne in the Bul- 


Le Temoignage; a long compilation of mat- 
ter from other sources, by G. Bonnet 
Maury, partly in the Critique Philosophique 
and partly in the Critique Religieuse ; an 
essay by Εἰ. de Muralt, in the Revuede Thé- 
ologie et de Philosophie; a dissertation chiefly 
on the origin of the episcopal office, by S. 
| Mathieu, in the Revue de Théologie, of Mont- 


sance, on the organization of the Primitive 
Church; an anonymous article in La Se- 
maine Religieuse, of Geneva; and an arti- 
cle by Jean Reville in the Renaissance. But 
it is only within a few weeks that a real 


has appeared in France. This is the work 

ot Paul Sabatier, author of the series of 
articles above mentioned, that appearéd 
last year in L’ Hglise Libre. 

The result is one worth the delay. It is 
by no means, as some of the French essays 
were, a rehash of matter that had appeared 
everywhere else, but is a fresh, original 
work, made after full study of nearly all 
the preceding publications, and a great 
deal of independent research by the author 
himself. Scarcely any portion of the work 
is without its new matter, except the Greek 
text; and that contains the more important 
conjectural emendations of other editors, 

in the shape of foot-notes. The text fol- 
lowed is that given by Bryennios. 

The Introduction contains an account of 

ἐς discovery of the ‘‘ Teaching,” and of the 


_maauscript in which it occurs; giving, 
ΓΘ ΆΝ > Sees z 


* ATAAXH ΤΩΝ Ib’ ἈΠΟΣΤΌΛΩΝ, κα pi- 
daché ou l’'Enseignement des Douze Avpotres. Texte 
Gree, retrouvé par Mor. PHILOTHEOS BRYENNIOS, Μέ- 
_tropolitan de Nicomédie, publié pour la premiére fois 
en France, avec un commentaire et des notes, par PauL 
“Saparier, ancien élévedela Faculté théologie protest- 

ante de Paris. Paris: Librairie Fischbacher, Société 


likewise, in ἃ long foot-note;-a sketch of” 
the life and labors of Bishop Bryennios, 
the data for which were kindly furnished 


by the bishop’s secretary, and which ἴδ᾽. 


_ Speaking of the publications called forth by 


| betin Critique; a series by E. Menegoz, in | 


| and commented upon in many separate pam- 


| from holding the first place. 


° {ς $ ° 
ee ee ee ie ho Renate all believed that they were going to find in the 


edition of the ‘‘ Teaching,” with the Greek | 
text translation, notes and commentary, | 


substantially the same with that published — 
‘a short time since in Tur INDEPENDENT. 
In passing, the author stops to correct a. 
current error relative to Bryennios’s edition 
of the ‘‘ Teaching,” stating that {ts matter is 
written in ancient, not modern, Greek. 


the appearance of the ‘‘ Teaching,” the au- 
thor remarks upon its reception in America . 
in terms that are worth translating. After 
mentioning the scholarly quality of the 
German works, and their little effect on 
the German people, he proceeds: 

‘“‘It was quite otherwise in America, where 


| 
| the text of the Didaché, transmitted by tele- 


graph, was immediately reproduced in many 
newspapers, political or religious, and translated 


phlets. [Here a footnote says that the edition 
of Hitchcock and Brown was published March 
20th, and 5,000 copies sold the same day.] But, 
in that effervescence, scientific interest was far 
The different sects 


new document means of upholding their own 
pretensions and combating those of their neigh- 
bor-sects. The question of baptism, in partic- 
ular, was made the order of the day; and, 
strangely enough, partisans and adversaries 
alike attempted to rest their different opinions 
upon the same passages. 
“Let us hasten to say that, after that ava- . 

lanche of works, too often mediocre, there have 


_ appeared in America some serious studies, sci- 


entific and independent. We are happy to notice 


one among the others which deserves to be 
| placed alongside of the finest German mono- 


raphs, and which appears to announce among | 


our friends of the United States a theological de-" 
velopment little known hitherto. It is due to. 


the joint labor of Messrs. Stanhope Orris, Ren- 
del Harris, Hall, and Craven. Dividing the dif- 
ferent questions among themselves according to 
their aptitudes and their special studies, they 
have furnished a monograph which, while very 
learned, succeeds in being very clear and easy 


| to consult.” (A foot-note refers to the Journal 
| of Christian Philosophy, in which those articles 


appear. ) 

The author acknowledges the kindness 
of various Americans, Englishmen, and 
Germans in furnishiag him with many 
articles on the ‘‘Teaching ”; but his bibliog- 
| raphy is merely a select one, in tabular 
form, filling a little more than two pages. 

The translation is very neat and spirited ; 
the notes pertinent, not very voluminous, 
but containing much new matter, especially 
showing the indebtedness of the author of 


anomyne. 8vo, pp. 167. : | 


‘the “ Teaching” to the son of Sirach. Τ 


of the translation appearing in familiar | 
‘spots throughout. Asa whole, the trans- 
lation and notes are not surpassed by any 
work of like compass. After the transla- 
tion comes the Historical and Critical Study 
in eight sections, treating severally of the 
catechetical instruction, baptism, fasting 
and prayer, the eucharist, spiritual gifts, 
and ecclesiastical offices, deacons and 


bishops, events at the end (of the world), | order appears settled or tangible. 


and the date and origin of the work. 


It is impossible to abstract the matter of || 
the notes and the ‘‘ study”; for it is pre- 


sented almost in abstract, and is very rich 
and full. But the whole plan of treatment, 


whether in detail or as a whole, is different 


from that of any other edition. In general 


Ἶ troublesome places are very well resolved, | | 
but not in a unique manner, the neatness; MM. 


1€ ἢ from the fraternal Jewish meal, with the | | 
bread and cup which were blessed thereat. | 
ΝΜ. Sabatier is inclined to consider the cup | 
“of the Lord’s Supper as the eztraordinary ' 
‘‘cup of blessing,’ and the cup of the 


Didaché’s eucharist as that™ of the other 
more ordinary meal. And here it may be 
mentioved that the author endeavors to 
trace the catechesis, the baptism, the fast- 
ing, prayer and eucharist, from the Jewish 
practices, of which they are adaptations or 
modifications, down as far as tradition or 
Of in- 
tensest interest is the discussion of these 


and the commentaries upon it. 


the author looks at it from the Jewish | upon the subject gives us a better or fairer 


side, considering that, when Christians 
first became such, under Christ’s own 
ministry, they silently kept the non-char- 
acteristic portions of the order and 561. 
vice in which they were brought up, and 
emphasized at first only the obvious 


picture of primitive Christianity, its nurses ie 
The work is unique, and 1 


and its cradle. 
cannot be neglected without loss. 


Confident in the strength of his conclu- | 


sions, the author has not attempted to do 
over again the work of others, whether in 


matters in which Christianity differed from | Germany or America. He is little indebted, 


Judaism. And he has made some such 
study of the ‘‘Teaching,” with its catechet- 
ical portion, its prayers, 
ucharist, etc., 


its baptism, its | 
that many others have 


apparently, to works onthe ‘‘Teaching” that 


have appeared in England, though greatly | 
indebted to English researches on other | 


subjects. He has thought it unnecessary 


‘de with regard to the Jewish elements || to make a separate study of the style and 


ia the Sermon on the Mount, the Lord’s | 
_ Prayer, and the other teachings of Jesus. | 
Following in this line everywhere, draw- | ophy, of April, 1884, as sufficient, and show- 
ing that the vocabulary takes us back to- 


ing on the Talmud and other Jewish 


the ‘‘ Teaching” is a very early production, 
and the production of a Jewish Christian. 
The conclusion respecting its very early 
date he had put forth last year; but now 
he does not hesitate to declare his opinion 
that the ‘“Teaching”’ was written early in the 
last half of the first century; even before 
the great missionary journeys of Paul! 


As between our author and those who) 
put the ‘‘Teaching” later than the Epistle of | 


Barnabas, the case seems clear. But it is 


not necessary that the date be quite so. 
1 early as the impetus of the author’s argu- | 
|} ment carries him. A like pressure of argu- | 


ment would put the composition of {86 
Book of the Acts earlier than Paul’s earlier’ 
}, epistles. However, the author’s use of nis 


| argument must be conclusive with those δὰ 


4 writers who, like Renan, have thought the 
» Lord's Supper to be a development out of 
ἡ the agape, which itself was 8 development | 


sources, the author has brought to light an | 
overwhelming array of proofs to show that | 


vocabulary of the ‘‘ Teaching,” referring to 
one made in the Journal of Christian Philos- 


the time when the New Testament writings 


points; and hardly less so that of the re- | 
maining subjects. The whole work is very { 
| luminous, and its reading will make the 
| “Teaching ” a new document for most of | 
those who are already familiar with its text | 
No work | 


were composed, or not far therefrom. It 


will be noticed that M. Sabatier differs 
\\ from Canon Spence in respect to date. The 
latter puts it 1] than the destruction of 
Jerusalem; but 
question, and deliberately puts it earlier. 
It is not to be supposed that the last word 
has yet been spoken on all points connected 
with the ‘‘Teaching”; it is understood, in- 
deed, that Mr. Taylor, the author of a 
remarkable edition of the ‘‘Pirke Aboth,” 
has in preparation an edition of the ‘‘ Teach- 
ing” on the same general lines as this of M. 
Sabatier; but the present work has raised 
a torch which is an honor to France, and 
an honor not at all dimmed by his present 
settlement within the boundary of Ger- 
. many, 


. Sabatier considers the | 


| 


THE DIDACHE. ONCE MORE.* 


tles” has long been intended by Dr. Schaff, 
and considered by him as an essential sup- 
plement to his “" Church History,” though 
it is now issued by a different publisher. 
The work is, therefore, on a somewhat dif- 
ferent line from most others, and in many 
respects to be judged differently. Its plan 


itself, though it is not the most voluminous 
edition of the ‘‘ Teaching” in existence. 
It is dedicated, by permission, to Bishop 
_Bryennios, whose portrait (the same cut 
that appeared some weeks ago in Harper’s 
Weekly) serves as a frontispiece. 


the ‘‘ Jerusalem Monastery of the Most Holy 
Sepulchre” in Stamboul, where the manu- 
script containing the Didaché was found, 


script, which show less and look somewhat 
rougher (as photo-engravings of type and 
script always do) than the photographs of 


kins University, though the copy, in com- 
mon Greek type, corrects a typographical 
Omission in that publication. 
tains the account of the life of Bishop 
Bryennios, which has already (substan- 
tially) appeared in ΤῊΝ INDEPENDENT, with 
the original data thereof in Greek, and a 
photo-engraved fac simile of a letter of 
Bishop Bryennios. To all is added also a 
somewhat select bibliography, with de- 


publications called forth by the discovery 
of the Didaché, and copies of illustrations, 
found in works on other subjects, and 
taken from ancient pictorial representa- 
tions of baptism. — 

The work opens with a chapter on the 
Jerusalem Monastery, which is not a de- 
scription, nor new, but in place here. The 
account of the manuscript, following, is 
one of the few which gives the correct 
spelling of ‘* Cassoboli,” though in one in- 
stance it is wrong by a misprint. The re- 
mainder of the preliminaries are brief, but 


*THE OLDEST CHURCH MANUAL, CALLED THE 


THAOCHING OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES. 
TON AQAEKA ATIOSTOAQN. ne piaachd 


and Kindred Documents in the original, with transla- 
tions and discussions of post-apostolic teaching, bap- 
tism, worship, and discipline; and with illustrations 
and fac similes of the Jerusalem Manuscript. By 
PHILIP ScuHar¥F. New York: Funk & Wagnalls. 8yo, 
PS viii, 301. Price, $2.00, 


ee ee Ae 


the same matter published by Johns Hop-. 


It also con- | 


AIAAXH 


Fhe Laefprsle! fn: “A 


/ 


AN edition of the ‘‘ Teaching of the Apos- — 


includes much more than the ‘‘ Teaching” | 


The vol- | 
ume is further adorned with a picture οἵ. 


with two photo-engravings from the manu- | 


scriptions fuller than usual of editions and | 


Didache. as a church manual, breaking his 


the one on baptism is very long, and treats 
mainly of later times. 
baptism expresses, of course, the author’s 
views; and he finds t7ine immersion as the 
form sanctioned in the Didaché, apparently 
from its direction of trine ajfusion, or else 
from an inference from the baptismal for- 
mula, coupled with the doctrine of later 
Christian fathers. Accordingly, the docu- 
ment would convict the Baptists of heresy 
in not immersing three times. Now and 
then a matter is inserted which ought not 
to be there, as the copying of Dr. Hitch. | 
cock’s “ amamid,” (p. 48, second eke | 
about which there is some misprint, or 
something else wrong, and for which it 
will bea puzzle to find any ‘‘ good author- 
ity.” So, in references to changes alleged 
in England, etc., ‘‘ from immersion to pour- 


minster Assembly of Divines ‘‘ decided 
by a close vote of twenty-five to 
twenty-four in favor of sprinkling” is a 
little wrong. The vote was, in substance, 


ing) being conceded to be the proper 
mode of baptism, immersion was to be 
recognized as equally proper. This chap- 
ter presents Dr. Schaff as quite opposite 
to Dr. Hitchcock in his views of the New 
Testament mode of baptism; and Dr, 


argument of the anti-immersionists 
assertion, on pages 56, 57, that ie 


| ized Christian communities which detache¢ 
| salvation from ecclesiastical ordinant er, 
| and taught the salvation of unbaptized 
| infants and unbaptized but believing adults” 

is a trifle startling, and needs some inter- 
| pretation, in nearly every term of the propo- 
sition, in order to pass unquestioned. The 
statement that ‘‘ Westcott and Hort, with 
some of the oldest authorities, read 
| ῥαντίσωνται for the received text 
βαπτίσωνταγ" in Mark vii, 4, needs a little 
modification. The reading was known and 
rejected long ago by other critics, was 


| some of his texts (¢. g., Triglott and earlier 
editiones. academice), but afterward. re- 
jected ; . while i in Westcott and Hort the re: 
| ing has the alternative in the margi 
one they consider so nearly probable a 


temporarily adopted by Tischendorf in 


“they show the rhetorical spur of enthusi- * 
asm. Almost insensibly the author passes ' 
from the preliminaries to a discussion of the i | 


matter up into short chapters, except that ἢ 


The chapter on. 


| 


ing and from pouring to sprinkling,” ᾿ 
(p. 52) the statement that the West-. 


on the question whether, sprinkling (orpour- , 


Schaff hardly does justice to the i The Pd 
e 


Baptists and Quakers were the first. vane 


“render their absolute dec 


ancient text (especially by a scribe used to 


-immersion as the ordinary form of baptism, 


_| but seeing that immersion was impossible 
here) any paleographer can tell; 


account for. 


while the 
reverse change is by no means so easy to | 


: ay 
_| How easily.» the former might have. peen | 
| formed from the latter in copying an - 


Passing by the rest of the discussion of | 


chureh order, the chapter ‘‘the Didaché | 
and the Scriptures” seems so full as to be> 
If the writer of the. 


a little strained. 
Didaché knew the Apocakypse (and yet 
wrote as Dr. Schaff thinks, at some time 


from A. D. 90—100), and if the fact is 


established in the way Dr. Schaff follows, it 
would seem that almost anything else could 
be proved. Dr. Schaff, however, says that 


the ‘* resemblances are remote indeed,” and | 


probably would not wish his arguments to 
be taken as more than suggestions. In the 


“Style and Vocabulary,” Greek scholars” 
would probably not follow the author in 


considering κυριακὴ as anon-New Testament 


᾿ word, merely because the adjective has no 


substantive expressed in the Didache. In 
his list of New Testament words not used 
in the New Testament sense” he includes 


ἀνταπόδομα, giving it the meaning of *‘re-"' 


venge’’; but he renders it in the New Tes- 
tament sense (‘‘reward’’) in his translation. 
In his comment on λύτρωσις he puts the 
Didaché on a Procrustean bed which would 
lop off the heads and feet of most Greek 
lassic authors. The truth is that the 
Didaché uses tropical language of just one 
grade higher than the ordinary English 
translations. It makes good sense to trans- 
late literally: 
shalt give redemption of thy sins.” 


‘‘Through thy hands thou 


The time of composition is considered by | 
Dr. Schaff to be a little earlier than A.D. 


100, its place Palestine, or Syria; perhaps 
either Antioch or Jerusalem. After the 
preliminary discussions, whose chief char- 
acteristic is their connection with later 
Church history, there follow the text of the 
Didaché itself, with translation and notes, 


and an enthusiastic excursus by Dr. B. Bo] 


Warfield, which builds too much on narrow 
foundations, even going so far as to sur- 


mise that the plural designation of the | 


‘¢ Teachings” by Eusebius and his follow- 
ers may be taken to indicate the existence 
of variant texts; then the parallels in Bar. 
nabas, Hermas, 


the Apostolical Church — 


Order (the tract called ‘Due Vie vel Ju- 


dictum Petri,” by Hilgenfeld); the same 


from the Coptic, translated by Tattam (not 


- ~— — " - = i 
i ne 


as might b Θ᾽ suppo sed from: 4 
a hale look at the title-page ¢ of the book), | 
and the seventh book of the Apostolical ᾿ 
Constitutions. In all these parallel docu- | 
ments, the closer parallels with the | 
Didaché are noted by appropriate type, — 
both in the Greek and in the English. . 
The correct text of the Didaché follows 
the manuscript more closely than even | 
Bryennios, putting variants and conjec-_— 
tures in the margin, along with Scripture | 
allusions and quotations. The translation | 
is generally very good; though it is hard 
to justify ‘‘ from our own blessings” in I,5, 
considering the order of words in the 
Greek, which refer the “own” to the. 
‘* Father,” while otherwise it. might pos. | | 
sibly 90 grammatically, but not intelligibly, 
with 7ao:—unless, perhaps, -Dr. Schaff hag — 
recognized the. logical difficulty, and taken | 
the bull by.the horns in a paraphrase. In | 
VI, 2,8 thou shalt. be perfect” is prob- 
ably a slip for “thou wilt be perfect,” A 
misprint or two cannot be helped; but it i 


a J 


unfortunate on p. 202, where a former 
translation is Ὁ ied as ‘‘ working into fin- 
stead of unto} the mystery of the church tn 
the world,’ and also on p. 166, where | 
κοδράντης, quadrans (farthing) is explained ᾿ 
as “ἃ quarter of an ass.” The Roman ὧν | 
is well enough anglicized, and ace may — 
stand for assaréwm in one of its senses; but 
the double-s in this case is misplaced. 
Such harmless misprints as ἰθρόω for ἰδρόω, 
p. 99, are to be reckoned among the un- 
avoidable things. 

The peculiar value of this edition consists 
first, in its main aim as a supplement to the | 
author’s ‘‘ Church History,” and its un- | 
ceasing allusions to and connections with 
later history; second, in its coming so late | 
in the series of editions of the Déidache 
and its industrious compilation from all 
sources (for a multitude of matters, how- 
ever, it was impossible to give credit to 
former investigators or laborers without 
swelling the volume enormously), and its 
references to other works, thus supplying 
the means of going to other sources for 
matters which the author treats less fully; 
and third, for its pictorial illustrations and 
fac similes, and its matter respecting Bishop 

Bryennios. The book would have been 
richer had it contained a more extended 
description of the monastery, especially of 
its library. 

How far this work will supersede others. 
is a question to be settled more by the 
student’s need than otherwise. There 
is scarcely one of the larger editions that 


| 


ΟΥ̓ elucidating the progress of the organ- 


mer editions, and gathered a desirable 


scattered fragments; but its 
from other fields have not interfered with™ 


history. ἘΝ ) FAs. Heeto ἘΣ 


a 


-- παρ ν i: 


ot contain matter peculiar to itself, 


and scarcely one that the thorough student | 


would not wish to have. None of them 
furnishes a better guide to other sources 
than the present one, nor has more matter 
extraneous to the main subject. Some 
others are fuller in the matter of text and 
commentary, in the strict character of an 
edited edition, and some others are fresher 
in certain lines of independent thought. 
This one never forsakes its main purpose 


ized Church, not even in its notes on the 
text. It.has reaped much fruit from for- 


amount together which would otherwise be 
gleanings « 


its own proper harvest in the field of Church 


/ We can imagine how ashamed a scholar like’ 
Prof. Frederic Gardiner (for the Episcopal 
Church is not devoid of scholars) must feel 
to see in the chief organ of his denomination 
such a paragraph as the following, by Prof. 
William Adams, D.D., of Nashotah Theological 
Seminary, on the ‘‘ Teaching of the Apostles” : 


** When this book first came before me I wrote 
upon it an article, to be found in The Churchman of 
April 12th. I had not then the Greek text as edited 
by Bishop Bryennios. I now have this. I have 


read it carefully, and my opinion is unchanged. It 


is an apocryphal book, and of no value whatsoever,” 


When the book of Bryennios came to this coun- 
try Professor Gardiner was one of the first to see 


its value, and translated the ‘ Teaching” for The 
Churchman. Dr. Adams read the translation, 
and, without having seen the Greek text, which 


was then accessible in the Union Seminary 


| edition, pronounced against the work; and he 


now repeats that it is of no value. In s0 doing 


he simply writes himself down an incompetent | 


scholar, who knows nothing about the subject, 
and is not fit to teach in a theological seminary. 


The notes of Bryennios, if the Professor is 


able to read them, ought to be sufficient to con- | 


vince any unprejudiced mind of the genuineness 
and value of the ‘“‘Teaching,” and of its great 
antiquity. On that subject there is, as we an- 
ticipated when we first introduced it to the 


American public, absolutely no difference οὗ, 


opinion in Germany, France, Great Britain and 
America. The yote has already been taken. 
We have on our table Von Gebhardt and 


he ee 


ought to respect, like Professor Wadsworth and 
Canon Farrar, say the same thing. There is no 


| question that the date of its composition cannot 
be later than the second century, and. the doubt _ 


is whether it does not go back to the first. That 
depends on whether it shall prove to be earlier 
or later than the Epistle of Barnabas and the 
Shepherd of Hermas. Thatit is earlier than the | 
Apostolic Constitutions, and than what is called | 
by the various designations of ‘Two Ways,” | 
‘‘ Judgment of Peter,” and the ‘‘ Constitutions ’ 
of Clement,” and that these are developments of 
it, is beyond question. 


—"! 


DEAN REICHEL, who has been called the most ἡ 


learned dignitary of Irish Episcopacy, has a pa- 
per on the ‘‘Teaching of the Apostles” in The 


_ Irish Ecclesiastical Gazette, in which he says 


that this new discovery ‘‘makes the old contro- 
versy about the divine right of Episcopacy and 
Presbyterianism obsolete.” Recognizing this as 
_ probably the most ancient document after the 
New Testament, if not, indeed, older than some 


parts of the New Testament, he says that the 


ecclesiastical organization it presents answers 
to no ecclesiastical organization now existing. 


‘Its bishops and deacons are, of course, the same 
as the Presbyterian bishops and deacons of the Phi- 


| quent order, and its apostles are a kind of itinerat- 
| ing missionaries, whose rapid passage from place to 


nights anywhere) throws a marvelous light on the 


extraordinary rapidity with which Christianity over-. 


spread the Roman Empire like wildfire.” 


This last suggestion as to the effect of this rapid 
itinerating is an interesting one. We do not re- 
member anything just like it in modern missions, 
although our missionaries are recognizing the 
great value of their itinerating tours, which some. 
of them, at least in India, carry on on a large 
scale. Wecommend the Dean’s candid and schol- 
arly recognition of the evident meaning of the 


now famous old document to the Nashotah Pro-- 


fessor, who denies its antiquity because it is less 
hierarchical than Irenzeus, and to those other 


| unanimity, each discover their own polity ex- 
actly pictured out inthe ‘‘ Teaching.” A new 
document like this is to be studied with impar- 


tiality, with no attempt to make ecclesiastical . 
capital out of it. ΤῸ A 


A RECOVERED DOCUMENT OF THE PRIMITIVE 


English Church, whom Professor Adams. 


lippian Church; but its prophets are Jike no subse-. 


| place (they are forbidden to stay longer than two. 


Episcopalian, Presbyterian and Congregational 
critics who, with such amazing and amusing. 


- 


i : CHURCH. 

| Harnack’s _ editi j i Α ἧ é ὍΝ 

[ {on αἱ HOD, « Just mpceured, whose διδαχὴ τῶν Δώδεκα ᾿Αποστόλων ἐκ τοῦ Ϊεροσο- 
rum postolicorum Opera” is a chief . λυμιτικοῦ χειρογράφου νῦν πρῶτον ἐκδιδομένη 
| Standard authority of the very. earliest | 1 


» + . ὑπὸ Φιλόθεου Βρυεννίου μητροπολίτου 


| poveslastical. writings, We have also Hilgen- Νικομηδείας (Ἐν Κωνσταντίινουπόλει.) } 


feld’s edition, who has introduced it, learnedly 
annotated, into a new edition of his ‘“‘Novwn (HERE has always been great difficulty in 
Testamentum extra Canonem Receptum.” Both lettling what the original documents were out 
of these authorities accept it fully as being the bf which the so-called ‘ apostolical constitu- 
very same ancient document of which Eusebius }ions’’ were put together. Of the four 


and Athanasius speak, and a discovery whose harts often assigned, Bickell conjectured that. 
Importance cannot. “ sg aaa = ae 


4 
Ϊ 


|) with the first part of the book called 
| Two Ways,” or ‘The Judgment of Peter,” 


_ Epistle of Barnabas. 


_| Nicephorus. 


‘came from some early writing, standing in 
‘close connexion with the latter part of the 
This early writing 
_, Archbishop Bryennius thinks he has dis- 
| covered in the document called “*‘ The Teach- 


ing of the Twelve Apostles,” which he has 
| printed from the Jerusalem MS. of the year]. - 
| 1056 (now at Constantinople), which contains 
| the epistles of Clement and Barnabas in their 


| complete Greek form. 

The document itself is based largely on the 
Epistle of Barnabas, partly, perhaps, also on 
the ‘‘ Shepherd ᾽ of Hermas (though this is less 
| certain), and is essentially the same work as 
| that referred to by Eusebius, Athanasius, and 
The first five chapters are meant 
| for the instruction of catechumens ; the rest is 
|a ‘Church and House book of the ancient 


1 Christians,’’ as Bunsen named it in the second 


1 volume of his Christianity and Mankind, and 
is equally valuable for what it ordains and for 
what it abstains from ordaining. Some rules 
are laid down; much is left to Christian free- 
|dom. Wecan already see ‘‘the Christian school 
and the Christian congregation, Christian 
worship and Christian 116: but there is 
little that can be used for controversial pur- 
poses, any more than there is in the Cata- 
combs. The simplicity and common-sense of 
the instruction is remarkable. In alms- 
giving we should know to whom we are 
giving, and give through the church officers, 
who know the needs of each. The author 
would have approved of Aristotle’s constant 
formula, ‘‘always regard the person, the 
| time, the amount, the manner,” &c.—a for- 
{mula which Clement of Alexandria adopts. 
Now we should say, Do not give to tramps, 
but give through the clergy, district visitors, 
scripture readers, relieving officers, and so on. 
Again, men are not pressed beyond their 
strength : 

“ΤΠ thou canst bear the whole yoke of the 
Lord, thou shalt be perfect; but if thou canst 
not bear it, do what is in thy power....In 
the congregation thou shalt confess thy trans- 
gressions, and shalt not come to thy prayers 
with an evil conscience ” (see Ps. xxxyv. 18). 


In baptizing, 

“if thou hast no living [fresh] water, dip into 
other water; and if thou canst not in cold, 
then in warm water; and if thou hast 
neither, pour water thrice on the head in the 
name of the Father and Son and Holy Spirit.” 


ἢ ΜᾺ : 

At the Thanksgiving (Eucharist) thus thank 
ye: 

“First for the cup; we thank thee our Father 


ον the holy vine of David thy servant which 
ἐπα madest known to us through Jesus thy 
\ 


servant [παιδός]. To thee the glory for ever. And 
lich is broken; we thank thee our 


and drink and eternal life through thy servant. 


the seventh book, which largely coincides | for ever. Thou, Almighty Master, didst: create ᾿ 
‘¢ The | all things for thy name, gavest food and drink ἢ 


to men for enjoyment that they might thank | 
thee, and to us thou didst grant spiritual food 


Before all things, we thank thee for thy power.. 
To thee the glory for ever. Remember, Lord, ' 
thy church, to deliver it from all evil, and 
perfect it in thy love. . . . But permit ye the 
prophets to give thanks as much as they will. 
. And concerning the apostles and prophets 
according to the rule of the Gospel so do. And 
let every apostle coming to you be received as 
\the Lord, and he shall not remain:a day, but if 
‘there be need the second day also, but if he 
remain three he is a false prophet. . . . On the, 
Lord’s Day gather together, break bread and 
give thanks, and confess your sins that your 
sacrifice may be pure. . . . Elect for yourselves | — 
bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord, men 
meek and not covetous, and true and tried, for 
they too minister to you the ministry of the 
prophets and teachers.” 


ert pi ee 


Thus teaching is still carried on by men who 
have the gifts of the spirit, and who travel 
about to preach; but the practical work of 
management and of charity is entrusted to 
bishops and deacons, whom each church elects 


for itself as its settled managers. 
What date and place can we assign to the 
Treatise? The tone is early, especially in 
what concerns the ministry and the Eucharist, 
and baptizing in ‘living water’’—7.e., of 
rivers or springs. The author says we must 
not fast, as the hypocrites (7.e., Jews) do, on 
the second and fifth day of the week, but 
on the fourth and on the preparation (Friday). | 
Again, such references as that to offering the} 
first fruits for charity may show that he was 
connected with the early Jewish Christian | 
Church. There is still also a strong expecta- 
tion of the Second Advent being near. The 
author does not name himself, or refer the 
book to famous names of prophets or apostles, 
as so many early apocryphal works do, 
and as the author of the ““ Apostolical 
Constitutions’ does; his is the simple tone 
of an earnest teacher, ‘‘My son, do thus; 
this is the way of life.’ He is not 
aware of much heresy, except the practical 
heresy of covetousness and false desires. He 
does not refer by name to the books of Scrip- 
ture, but seems to allude to several passages, 
from St. Matthew and a few from St. Luke 
pand St. Paul. He gives the Lord’s Prayer 
more in accordance with the Textus Receptus 
than with the Vatican MS., but reads ὁ ἐν τῷ 
οὐρανῷ, omits τῆς before γῆς (as Vat.), reads 
τὴν ὀφειλήν, and has at the end only ἡ δύναμις 
καὶ ἡ δόξα (as also in chap. ix.). He is per- 
haps following some liturgical source rather 
than St. Matthew. But farther on he uses 
Matt. vii. 6 : μὴ δῶτε τὸ ἅγιον Tots κυσί. Inone 
place he uses the expression μαραναθά from 
1 Cor. xvi. 22, and Prof. Wordsworth has sug- 
, The Nook ἢ 6 ΘΠ. written 


os 


a Ct ~ ΤΣ τ τ 


{Father for the life and knowledge which thot) (¢Corinth or some Greek church. | nome 
madest known to us through Jesus thy servant. Pauline church is most probable, which used 
To thee the glory for ever. As this which " mainly the Gospel of St. Matthew, and the 
broken wa ems ttored upon the mountains an vate wiay bé Some Way ὁπ "ἔν the second’ 
became onttby being brought together, so let | cate tif Hermas used our book, and not 

| thy church be brought togethe? a a ΓΞ ΤΠ ΡΣ Σ Beverinis: puts it between 120 
4 , earth into thy kingdom, for | vice versa). 

at pra the eth to Thy Reon for le ean). Beye Boy anne ean of 
Christ for ever; ... and after ye are ἔοι Gnosticism and Montanism in το ἮΝ ἯΙ πον ἢ 
thus thank ye; We thank thee, Holy ke is of the slightest. The interest ὁ 0 aia 
thy holy name which thou didst ἐὰν faith and | i8 great, for it helps us to see how works : | 
hearts, ang pe Lally Leas ors 4 to us| the ‘‘ Apostolical Constitutions Fa cai "εἰ 
A i rT “. hou mades nov 5 A cae δὲ a orate and. 
τώδε Yat. To thee the glory ally built up, early writings Incorpo: est 


. 


Ε Cae eo, ἘἘὔ ὄἪ 
_ _THE TEACHING OF THE TWELVE fig 
ee : “APOSTLES. ἘΚ. 2S /{4 

_ It is now little more than ἃ year since the’ American 

theological world was startled by the alleged discovery 

of a new document belonging to the sub-apostolic age. 

The present publication of a new American edition of 

| the text of this now world-famous treatise, The Teach- 

ing of the Twelve Apostles, affords an opportunity 

briefly to note the resulis of a year’s criticism of the 

document. : : . £090, | 

τ Published in 1883 through Boutyra of Constantinople 

: _by thg discoverer, Philotheos Bryennios, the Greek met- 

| -ropolitan of Nicomedia, the Teaching has for more than 

twelve months been subjected to the closest critical seru- 

‘tiny by German, French, English, and American scholars. 

The profoundest criticism of the document has come from 

| Germany ; the widest popular interest has been displayed 

“in America, where the Teaching may almost be said to 

have been seized out of the hands of patristic scholars, 

and utilized at once for polemical purposes by denomi- 

national apologists. Nor was this one-sided method of 

discussion wholly to be regretted. It insured a kind of 

criticism to which the document was not subjected by 

Continental European scholars (with the exception, per- 

haps, of the Roman Catholic Bickell), and to which it was 

only partially subjected in England. The latter coun- 

U try made no contribution of first importance, either 

| from the critical or the polemical standpoint. Professor 

- Wordsworth, Bishop Lightfoot, and Canon Spence 

_ directed scholarly attention to the treatise; but Arch- 

| deacon Farrar’s translation of it was notably disap- 

pointing in respect of Greek scholarship. “J 

‘The results of a year’s criticism have been directly in 

| favor of the sub-apostolic origin of the newly recovered 

| ‘document, The series of sensational articles which, 

; _ appeared in the Boston Advertiser, and which for a 
i a 


" ; - : 
Be *AIAAXH TON AQAEKA ΑΠΟΣΤΟΛΩΝ, Teaching of the Twelve 
Apostles, recently discovered and published by Philotheos Bryennios 
_ Metropolitan of Nicomedia. Edited with a translation, introduction, 
1 _ and notes. By Roswell D. Hitchcock and Francis Brown, professors 
_ in Union Theological Seminary. A new edition revised and greatly 
-enlarged, 8yo, pp. cxy, 8. New York: Charles Scribner's Sor 


| TI ; ns. | . 
Jt _ Price, $2.00. | 


+ ἢ ] Le ee 


ere eae : oa 


ee 


reo 


Se a 


᾿ 


time shoe. the faith: ith of some who wer Ὁ not familiar witk 
the ‘evidence i in favor of the Teaching, aie beer 20Wn 
to be the work of an. ill-informed and-culpably. careless 
newspaper correspondent; and. they would not have 
“been mentioned here but for the” impression which they! 
created outside. the circle of patristic students. The| 
‘impartial serutiny of all the evidence available, on the’ 
part of original investigators, has resulted in pushing 
| the probable date of the Teaching nearer to the apos-. 
| tolie age than was at first conceded. The years A. Ὁ. 90 
and A.D. 150 probably mark the points within which | 
the date of the document will ultimately be fixed. Tn 
the case of the parallel passages in the epistle of Barna- 
bas and the Teaching, a greater teudency is shown to 
régard the text of the Teaching as the earlier of the 
two. The opinion has also gathered strength that we 
‘must look to Egypt for the origin of the Teaching; and 
a strong argument—though not, we think, a conclusive 
one—can be urged in favor of this opinion. In point of 
fact, the Teaching has, so far, not only come out of the 
fires of criticism unscathed, but an earlier date and a 
more important place in early Christian literature is now 
assigned to it than was originally claimed for it ‘by Bry- 
ennios himself. Krawutzcky, who refuses to accept this 
as the original of his now famous restoration, stands 
| practically alone among scholars. 

The new American edition by Professors Hitchcock 
and Brown calls for no extended criticism. It is the 
completed work of which the first edition issued last 
year by the same authors was merely a hasty outline. 
At several places the former translation has been modi- 
fied; among others at the difficult passage in the six- 
beens chapter, where the rendering of ὑπὸ (hypo), line 
‘311, as “from under,” first suggested by The Sunday 
School Times, has been adopted. . There is a full intro- 
duction covering the history of the Teaching, and dis- 
cussing the question of the relationship of the document 
to other early Christian literature. In matter and style 
this -introduction is popular as weil as scholastic. 
While the original Greek is freely quoted, it may be 
said in general that-this introduction contains in English 
the passages from early Christian Hterature, quoted in 
the edition of Bryennios in the original Greek. The 
labors of the Germans receive aiso a fair share of 
attention. 

In comparison with the hastily prepared notes which | 
appeared in last year’s edition, the notes in the present 
volume are fall and satisfactery. They cover sufficiently 
the questions started by the linguistic peculiarities of 
the Greek of the Teaching; and all non-biblical words, 
and biblical words used in a non-biblical sense, are care- 
fully indicated. - mt 

The volume is, of course, net free from minor errors. 
ΑΒ a sample we may instance the rendering of τῶν Παύλου 
Πράξεων ἡ γραφή, 6 τε λεγόμενος Ποιμὴν by “the Acts of Paul, 
the writing which is called Shepherd ”—a rendering which 
must surely be an oversight, as the words “the writing” 
belong by construction to the preceding genitive. The 


ed eee 


ation of Cremer for or Lucian’s use of the word ‘odd: 
(hodos) ga little surprising ἴα. view of the fact that the 
ε ταν οι is. quo din full from Lucian in. Bryennios’ 8 
original edition, and- that the) meaning ascribed to it by 
Cremer can be found in any good modern lexicon, and 

| even in the venerable ae ge -who also_ makes the 
| ‘reference to Lucian. 

| In an appendix Professor Philip Schaff ἐγ τῷ 
' ‘auseful Digest of the Didache Literature, which covers 
all importants European and American notices to date. 

| Professor Schaff’s ascription of the-authorship of The 
| ‘Sunday. School Times version, following, apparently a 
guess by The Independent, is only partially correct. , 
| The version was the joint work of two trans|ators—of the | 
editorial staff (Professor Isaac H. Hall and Mr. John T. 
Napier)—not of one; each having taken one-haif, and 
| the two going over τε whole together. 

Professors Hitchcock and Brown’s new edition of the 
| Teaching of the Twelve Apostles is the most complete 
| edition yet published in America, Its full notes and 
introduction, its clear Greek text, and its satisfactory 
summary of the literature of its subject, fit it for use in. 
ithe theological seminary. The English translations 
‘from patristic literature in the introduction, and the 
translation of the Teaching itself which faces ihe Greek | 
| text, make it suitable for use by the general reader also. | 
Η- : ‘ ; Ἃ : 


ἘΣ 


4 
sic 


anew 
: 
ΞΈΞΣΣΤΣ 
Re ed 
280 ae γε ον 


2355. 


πω. 
cme ee ἀνα 


fear 
aware 
Suac eran 526 


πάσα wee αὶ 


ey 
μι 
+] 
. 


5 
δὰ 
¢ 
Ἢ 
τ 
' 
% 
* 
a 


Bates 


Metin ss 


er oe aw wok α 


ἐφ 
8 
a 
" 
ἱ 
; 
Hi 
% 
ὃ 
3 
ἢ 
i 
ἵν 
4 
ἢ 
ἢ: 


vase Ser τς νι eee νος 
ἄν αν νὰ 
eer toe 


ΣΎ ΕΣ 


2 
4" 


ee 


π᾿ 
et 
τς 


Teese 
io a ow oP 


aoe 


ees 
seve 


ee τειν τ, 71:5: 


(ae δα, ας ὧν ψα 


eet ται 
mae ate tal 


4 


Teoh RE SATE oT 
C3 2A. Ss : 
= re ἑ 


απ σ΄ τ ~ pth rn Seen ee 


eS 


ah 
eae te 
wigs 4 
o 

rer Ue 
Ro ει ἦν. 


ine 


bie 


ahs wage Se ig ae hee γαῖ . Sey 
: Η ων 


te - 
af on? 
paar 


